tie 


LONDON 


":-'^'.i*^s^i'j,lim^ 


// 


I 


4.-^ 


^^^^■r^' 


,'^*'. 


OLD    ST.   PAUL'S,  about    1550. 
From  Anthony  van  der  Wyngaerde's  View  of  London. 


LONDON 


BY 


SIR    LAURENCE    GOMME 

F.S.A. 


PHILADELPHIA 

J.    B.    LIPPINCOTT    COMPANY 

LONDON  :  WILLIAMS  &  NORGATE 
1914 


PREFACE 

This  is  the  third  book  on  London  which  I  have 
attempted  during  the  past  six  years.  In  the 
Governance  of  London  (1907)  I  dealt  with  a  newly 
discovered  aspect  of  the  question  of  origins  ;  in  the 
Making  of  London  (1912)  I  attempted  to  apply  the 
results  of  this  study  to  the  evolution  of  the  city ;  in 
the  present  book  I  deal  independently  with  a  part 
of  the  subject  which  is  only  incidentally  touched 
upon  in  the  two  previous  books,  and  I  lay  claim  to 
have  discovered  the  great  fact  of  historical  continuity, 
conscious  and  effective  continuity,  underlying  the 
main  issues  of  London  life  throughout  all  its  changes. 
The  continuity  springs  from  the  city-state  of  Roman 
Londinium,  is  carried  through  the  hundred  years  of 
historical  silence,  is  handed  on  to  the  London  of 
Anglo-Saxon  times,  proceeds  through  the  great 
period  of  Plantagenet  rule,  runs  deep  down  under 
the  preponderating  mass  of  Tudor  and  Stuart  changes, 
and  comes  out  in  the  open  when  the  Georgian  states- 
manship broke  away  the  blocking  forces. 

The  continuity   thus    revealed    is   not  unchanging 
throughout   the   centuries.     Each    age    modifies    its 


vi  LONDON 

form  ;  or  rather  its  form  is  modified  by  the  different 
forces  which  have  constantly  worked  upon  it.  The 
ideal  of  continuity  comes  from  Roman  London  and 
from  Roman  Augusta,  and  it  has  never  lost  touch 
with  the  realities.  Each  age  has  possessed  the  feeling 
for  continuity,  has  expressed  itself  in  terms  belonging 
to  itself.  It  is  only  the  terms  which  have  altered. 
The  Plantagenet  rulers  of  London  did  not  express 
their  sense  of  continuity  as  the  Tudor  or  the  Stuart 
rulers  of  London  expressed  theirs.  The  material 
was  different,  but  the  undying  ideal  was  always 
the  same. 

At  certain  epochs  this  ideal  has  been  repressed 
and  smothered  for  a  time,  but  it  has  raised  its  head 
once  and  again  ;  and  certainly  down  to  the  Georgian 
period  it  was  strongly  persistent.  1  believe  that  it 
still  exists,  that  though  it  is  once  again  repressed  and 
smothered  it  is  there  strongly  working  towards  its 
destined  use,  ready  to  hand  when  once  it  is  clear  that 
the  moment  for  it  has  arrived. 

The  value  to  the  history  of  English  institutions 
from  a  close  study  of  London  is  very  great.  It  sets 
up  a  standard  of  comparison  both  with  local  and 
national  institutions,  and  it  throws  considerable  light 
upon  the  evolution  of  the  state.  Scholars  have  been 
too  apt  to  approach  the  study  of  English  institutions 
in  terms  of  their  latest  historical  condition,  instead  of 
in  terms  of  their  earliest  condition,  and  it  is  only  when 
we  come  to  deal  with  the  facts  which  arise  out  of 
the  comparative  method  that  we   can  see   the  false 


PREFACE  vii 

issues  which  arise  from  this  treatment  of  the  subject. 
London  in  relation  to  England  was  in  the  earliest 
period  outside  all  that  Anglo-Saxon  polity  could  hold. 
Its  existence  and  its  continuance  were  never  parts 
of  the  English  settlement  of  tlie  country,  and  it  is 
because  the  non-English  elements  of  London  are  so 
prominent  that  we  are  able  to  define  the  special  posi- 
tion to  which  it  attained  in  that  settlement.  London 
was  never  a  city  of  the  English,  but  it  became  a  city- 
institution  under  English  dominance.  This  is  a  vital 
distinction,  and  because  it  is  possible  to  make  it,  the 
facts  on  both  the  London  side  and  the  English  side 
can  be  classified  and  arranged  in  distinct  groups — 
groups  having  relationship  one  to  the  other,  but 
so  dissimilar  as  never  to  have  merged.  The  merging 
of  London  into  early  English  institutions  is,  in  fact, 
an  unthinkable  proposition,  for  they  nowhere  meet 
on  common  ground. 

1  am  aware  of  the  opposition  to  such  a  point  of 
view.  Coming  from  the  schools  which  have  so  long 
been  dominated  by  the  sweeping  generalities  of 
Freeman  and  his  followers,  it  is  an  opposition  not 
easy  to  meet.  Because  Stubbs  on  purely  scientific 
grounds,  and  Freeman  on  historical  grounds,  have 
proved,  and  I  tliink  successfully  proved,  that  the 
Englisli  conquest  resulted  in  the  dominance  of 
English  government,  language,  and  life  generally,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  conclude  tliat  in  no  spot  in  Teutonic 
England  did  pre- English  life  exist  or  re\eal  itself 
Because  history  is  silent  it  is  not  necessary  to  conclude 


viii  LONDON 

that  no  other  evidence  exists — that  both  historical 
survival  and  traditional  survival  have  no  value.  The 
value  of  both  is  greater  far  than  has  ever  been  recog- 
nised, and  it  is  the  recognition  of  their  value  v^hich 
has  made  my  own  study  possible. 

To  have  studied  London  to  the  full  is  to  know^  that 
London  tells  her  own  story,  and  that  no  one  can  tell 
it  for  her.  Whatever  credit  may  come  to  those  who 
act  as  scribe,  it  is  after  all  a  small  thing,  for  the  inspir- 
ation is  drawn  from  the  great  city  itself.  It  is  true 
that  the  story  I  have  to  tell  differs  altogether  from 
that  hitherto  told,  but  it  is  impossible  for  it  to  be 
wrong  on  that  account.  It  includes  whole  masses  of 
material  which  have  hitherto  been  ignored,  and  though 
the  proportions  due  to  the  inclusion  may  not  be 
always  exactly  measured  perhaps,  the  foundations  of 
the  edifice  are  perfect.  This  makes  it  quite  impossible 
deliberately  to  twist  London  history  or  to  change 
it  in  any  particular  direction.  A  mere  bundle  of 
ancient  things  brought  together,  as  in  a  museum,  for 
the  curious  may  be  used  in  such  a  way,  as  we  see 
from  Loftie's  book,  but  the  glory  of  quarrying  in  so 
magnificent  a  field  of  research  brings  to  student  and 
reader  the  glory  of  a  London  instinct  with  life,  and  a 
great  life. 

I  have  two  apologies  to  make. 

Perhaps  it  would  have  been  more  scientific  to  have 
conniienced  from  the  argument  side  of  the  subject, 
and  therefore  with  the  fourth  chapter  on  survivals, 
working  back  from  them  to    the  actual    remains    of 


PREFACE  ix 

Celtic  and  Roman  London.  Survivals  are  stubborn 
things  to  get  over.  They  do  not  exist  without  tlie 
strongest  cause  tor  existence,  and  that  cause  resides 
in  the  originals  from  which  they  owe  their  beginning. 
I  thought,  however,  that  the  chapter  would  be 
better  in  its  chronological  order,  so  that  the  argument 
should  rest  upon  historical  rather  than  anthropological 
methods.  The  structure  of  the  book  being  historical, 
its  order  should  be  historical,  but  the  reader  would 
do  well  to  consider  the  general  position  from  the  point 
of  view  now  suggested. 

I  have  also  one  word  to  say  about  the  tradition  of 
London.  I  could  not  omit  this  from  my  evidence, 
and  1  could  not  complete  it.  It  will  make  a  book  by 
itself,  and  I  hope  to  publish  it  soon.  It  is  an  im- 
portant element  in  London  history,  and  has  been 
entirely  neglected.  I  trust  that  the  summary  I  have 
given  in  the  text  will  suffice  for  immediate  pur- 
poses. I  am  sure  the  completed  study  will  satisfy 
many  that  the  position  I  take  up  for  London  is 
historically  sound. 

Both  the  publishers  and  myself  have  to  acknow- 
ledge with  many  thanks  kind  permission  accorded  us 
by  the  following  to  make  use  of  illustrations  : — 

The  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  London,  to  re- 
produce from  AiTlueologia — the  Altar  to  Diana; 
Matrome ;  Retiarius ;  and  a  portion  of  Braun  and 
Hogenberg's  plan;  from  an  engraving,  "Edward  VI. 
giving  charters  to  Bridewell  and  Bethlem  hospitals."" 

The  London   Topographical  Society,  to  use  their 


X  LONDON 

reproductions  of  the  views  of  liondon  by  Agas, 
Wyngaerde,  and  Visscher. 

The  Royal  Geographical  Society,  to  use  from  their 
Journal — Hollar's  view  of  London  Bridge ;  map  of 
Southwark ;  the  Fleet  near  Bagnigge  Wells. 

Mr  C.  Bathurst.  to  use  illustrations  from  Roman 
Antiquities  in  Lydney  Park. 

Mr  E.  E.  Newton,  to  use  a  selection  from  his 
collection  of  pictures  of  London. 

And  I  must  thank  Mr  T.  F.  Hobson,  for  so  kindly 
obtaining  for  me  Mr  Wood's  charming  drawing  of 
Wittenham  Tump  and  directing  the  artist's  attention 
to  the  best  view  for  the  purpose  of  my  argument. 


LAURENCE  GOMME. 


Long  Crendon^  Bucks, 
March  1914. 


CONTENTS 

CHAP.  PAGES 

I.  THE  POINT  OF  V^EW 1-19 

II    CELTIC  ORIGINS 20-43 

III.  ROMAN  ORIGINS 44-73 

IV.  THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT     .  74-109 
V.  ENGLISH  INCOMINGS 110-134 

VI.  THE  INSTITUTION  OF  THE  CITY      .         .  135-164 

VII.  CITY  AND  STATE 165-180 

VIII.  THE  DISRUPTION  OF  COxMMERCIALISM  .  181-232 

IX.   DECADENCE 233-282 

X.  CHANGES  AND  REVIVAL     ....  283-310 

XI.  GROWTH 311-332 

XII.  THE  GREATNESS  THAT  IS  LONDON         .  333-350 

APPENDIX 351-376 

INDEX 377-381 


LIST    OF    PLATES 

Old    St    Paul's,    about    1550.     (From    Anthony    van    der 

Wyngaerde's  View  of  London.)   .  .  .        Frontispiece 

PAGE 

London  Wall  from  Bishopsgate  to  Aldgate,  about  1560. 

(From  Ralph  Agas'  Map.)  .         .         .         .         .44 

A  Portion  of  Old  London  Wall  on  Ludgate  Hill.     (Brought 

to  light  by  afire  in  1792.) 46 

Part    of  London    Wall    in    the    Churchyard    of  St  Gile.s, 

Cripplegate.     (From  an  engraving  published  in  1792.)     48 

The  Tower  of  London  in   1647.     (From  an  engraving  by 

Hollar.) 172 

Sir  Thomas  More.     (From  the  drawing  bv  Hans  Holbein, 

at  Windsor  Castle.) 184 

'J'he    Bank,    about    1560.     (From    Ralph    Agas'    Map    of 

London.) 200 

The  Strand  in  1616.     (From  Nicolas  John  V^isscher's  View 

of  London.) 208 

Lambeth  Palace  in  1647.     (From  an  engraving  bv  Hollar.)  210 

London    Bridge,  about    1550.     (From    Anthony    van    der 

Wyngaerde's  View  of  London.)    .  .  .  .  .212 

Whitehall,  about  1560.     (From  Ralph  Agas'  Map.)   .  .  214 

London    and    Suburbs,    about    1580.     (P'rom    a    map    bv 

Christopher  Saxton.)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .216 


xiv  LONDON 

PAGE 

Old  St  Paul's,  1616.     (From  Nicolas  John  \  isscher's  View 

ofl^ondon.) 218 

Westminster   Hall,  about   1645.     (From  an  engraving  by 

Hollar.) 228 

Westminster  in  1647.     (From  an  engraving  by  Hollar.)      .  230 

St  Mary  Overy  (now  St  Saviour's)  Church,  Southwari<,  in 

1647.     (From  an  engraving  by  Hollar.)       .  .  .  236 

Cheapside,  with  the  Cross,  in  1660 272 

Whitehall  in  1647.     (From  an  engraving  by  Hollar.)  .  278 

York    House   in  1795,  showing  the  State    of  the  Streets. 

(From  an  old  engraving.)    ......  294 

Greenwich  Palace  from  the  Royal  Dockyard  at  Deptford 
in  1795.  (From  an  engraving  by  I,  C.  Sladler,  after 
a  drawing  by  I.  Farington,  R.A.)         .  .  .  .  296 

Hampstead  in  1814  from  the  Banks  of  the  Regent's  Canal, 
then  in  Course  of  Construction.  (From  an  engraving 
by  W.  Angus,  after  G.  Shepherd.)       .  .  .  .298 

New  River  Head  near  Sadler's  Wells  in  1795.     (From  an 

engraving  by  J.  Swaine.)     ......  300 

St  George's  Churchy  Hanover  Square,  about  1790.     (From 

an  engraving  by  John  Boydell.)  .....  306 

London  and  Suburbs  in  1798     ......  312 


LONDON 

CHAPTER   I 

THE    POINT    OF    VIEW 

n 

London  has  always  been  something  more  than  what 
is  inckided  under  the  nominal  or  ordinary  positions 
she  has  held  in  the  country  throughout  the  ages. 
She  was  something  more  to  the  Celts  than  a  great 
stronghold  on  the  Thames.  She  was  something 
more  than  a  city  of  the  Roman  Empire,  absorbent 
though  that  position  was.  She  was  something  more 
than  a  city-institution  thrust  in  amidst  incongruous 
Anglo-Saxon  institutions  ;  more  than  the  capital  city 
of  Norman  and  Plantagenet  England ;  more  even 
than  the  awakened  head  city  of  commercial  England 
under  the  Tudors.  She  was  more  than  a  walled  city 
of  the  Commonwealth,  or  than  a  pleasure  city  of  the 
Stuarts ;  something  more,  too,  than  the  government 
centre  of  the  Guelphs.  She  is  now  something  more 
than  a  city  without  a  city's  organisation  and  unity. 
But  she  is  not,  and  perhaps  has  never  been,  under- 
stood ;  neither  historian  nor  citizen  has  realised  the 

greatness  that  is  I^ondon. 

1 


2  LONDON 

It  is  the  something  more  that  matters — matters 
so  greatly ;  and  I  shall  hope  to  show  in  these  pages 
how  it  matters.  History  will  help  us  only  indirectly. 
The  real  appeal  will  lie  outside  the  realm  of  history. 
The  historical  fact,  priceless  as  it  is,  is  not  the  whole 
story  of  any  event.  Chronicle  is  not  history.  It  is 
historical  material  only.  There  are  motives  and  causes 
at  the  back  of  every  event.  There  are  results  and  in- 
fluences following  from  every  event.  And  motives, 
causes,  results,  and  influences  are  essential  to  the 
understanding  of  the  recorded  fact.  There  is,  too,  the 
mass  of  unrecorded  fact  which  has  to  be  reckoned 
with,  where  we  see  results  and  influences  only, 
apparently  detached  from  their  causes.  All  these 
considerations  lying  outside  the  historical  record 
provide  the  setting  and  the  proportions  of  events 
which  have  happened,  and  sometimes  they  are  of 
even  more  importance  than  the  record  itself.  We 
are  indeed  never  taken  to  the  beginning  of  things  by 
means  of  history.  It  only  records  their  continuance. 
Historians  discuss  beginnings,  history  never  does. 

In  trying  to  understand  the  point  of  view  pre- 
sented by  London,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  all  this 
in  mind.  We  have  to  gather  together  its  principal 
characteristics,  and  then  to  inquire — are  they  sub- 
ordinate or  ruling  characteristics  ?  do  they  govern  its 
position  in  all  the  main  issues  ?  do  they  pronounce  for 
a  position  in  the  nation  of  special  influence  and  im- 
portance ?  are  they  the  product  of  London  herself  or 
are  they  endowed  powers  from  a  sovereign  authority  ? 


THE   POINT   OF   VIEW  3 

In  answering  such  an  inquiry  we  find  that  at  no 
time  in  her  history  is  London  concerned  with 
merely  civic  functions.  We  shall  find  that  her  civic 
organisation  is  stretclied  in  every  direction  to  meet 
needs  that  are  national,  to  perform  functions  that 
penetrate  very  far  indeed  into  the  national  politics  of 
successive  ages.  The  stretching  does  London  no 
harm.  As  soon  as  the  occasion  has  passed,  it  resumes 
the  normal  course  of  events  belonging  to  the  times. 
We  shall  find  in  the  mediaeval  period  that  the 
most  prominent  note  is  the  control  of  the  individual 
by  the  community.  In  trade  and  commerce,  in  all 
dealings  with  his  fellows,  in  the  performance  of 
any  act  which  operates  in  the  open,  the  individual 
Londoner  obeyed  custom  in  most  things,  and  force 
where  force  was  necessary.  The  community  was  in- 
exorable— inexorable  on  the  whole  for  well-doing 
as  this  age  would  interpret  the  term  well-doing,  but 
inexorable  always  in  its  own  estimate  of  what  well- 
doing was.  This  great  force  must  have  existed 
behind  mediaevalism  in  the  earlier  ages,  just  as  it 
continued  beyond  medievalism  into  the  period 
when  the  communal  hold  was  breaking,  and  when 
it  had  broken ;  the  dominant  spirit  bursts  out  on 
all  great  occasions,  and  London  citizens  are  seen 
obeying  the  traditions  of  their  city.  In  this  way 
London  always  appears  as  a  great  city,  and  a 
great  city  is  not  created.  It  creates  itself  from  all 
the  influences  which  have  worked  through  its  life, 
and   London   never   loses   sight  of  these  influences. 


4  LONDON 

Rome,  the  greatest  of  all  examples,  never  lost  sight  of, 
never  wanted  to  lose  sight  of,  her  beginnings.  And 
London  has  never,  in  reality,  lost  sight  of  her 
beginnings,  however  she  may  have  obscured  them  at 
times.  The  question  of  beginnings  is  indeed  the  key 
to  all  later  history,  and  in  this  connection  the  point 
will  recur  over  and  over  again  as  to  whether  there  is 
a  parallel,  even  a  slight  one,  between  London  and 
Rome.  Extension  beyond  city  life  is  the  basis  of 
such  a  parallel. 

In  the  meantime  we  have  to  settle  the  true 
conception  of  events.  London  is  not  the  product 
of  one  age,  but  of  several  ages,  and  those  ages 
not  necessarily  in  progressive  touch  one  with  the 
other.  The  chronological  sequence  of  the  ages  has 
little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  history  of  London. 
What  has  to  do  with  it,  and  to  a  very  great  degree, 
is  the  continuity  of  history  within  London  itself. 
History  does  not  come  to  London  in  patches  and 
from  outside.  History  belongs  to  London  from 
within,  and  forms  one  continuous  stream.  London 
retains  in  each  successive  age  that  which  is  usefid  from 
the  past  in  meeting  the  new  facts  of  life  which  arise ; 
and  it  adds  to  tlie  old  that  is  retained,  the  necessary 
fresh  elements  which  go  to  make  up  the  successful 
grappling  with  new  problems  coming  with  new  eras. 
The  point  of  view  which  matters  most  in  this  con- 
nection is  the  element  of  continuity — continuity  of 
thought,  action,  and  policy.  The  factor  which  goes 
to    make   this    continuity   of  practical    value   is   the 


THE   POINT   OF   VIEW  5 

altogether  surprising  capacity  to  adapt  and  add  to 
the  ancient  continuous  hfe  ever  fresh  elements,  which 
turn  out  to  be  of  like  character  and  of  equal  force  to 
the  elements  already  in  active  existence.  In  this  way 
London  never  loses  touch  with  itself.  It  was  at  one 
period  very  nearly  losing  its  touch  with  the  nation, 
when  Alfred,  with  a  stroke  of  political  genius,  brought 
it  again  into  the  nation.  It  was  in  danger  at  one  or 
two  other  crises  under  the  Plantagenets  of  striking 
out  too  far  on  a  course  of  its  own.  But  in  the  end 
we  shall  find  that  London  is  always  in  touch  with 
its  past,  is  always  capable  of  calling  upon  reserves 
of  power  or  of  policy  which  answer  for  every 
emergency.  To  take  one  most  remarkable  illustra- 
tion :  its  organisation  for  defence.  When  occasion 
demanded,  it  assumed  the  position  of  a  city  in  arms. 
This  was  in  strict  accord  not  only  with  the  privilege 
but  with  the  duty  of  the  Roman  cities  of  the  Empire.^ 
It  was  as  a  city  in  arms  that  it  attacked  Hengist  and 
Msc  at  Crayford;  thus  it  met  the  attacks  of  the  Danes; 
thus  it  took  its  share  in  the  great  struggle  at  Hastings 
under  its  own  sheriff,  Ansgar ;  it  was  under  this 
influence  that  King  Stephen  mustered  the  men  of 
London  and  that  a  section  of  the  army  of  the 
barons  in  1264  was  composed  of  Londoners  ;  that  the 
well-known  gathering  under  Wat  Tyler  took  place 
at  Mile  End ;  that  the  organised  forces  of  the  city 
under   Henry  VIII.  were  gathered  there  according 

'   Mr  J.  S.  Reid  deals  with  this  feature  of  Roman  city  organisa- 
tion in  his  Municipalities  of  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  301. 


6  LONDON 

to  "ancient  custom";  and  that  the  city  in  arms 
marched  to  Newbury,  led  to  battle  by  the  city 
chiefs.  We  shall  deal  with  each  of  these  events 
in  its  place,  but  in  the  meantime  there  is  to  note 
that  when  the  emergency  arose  in  the  lifetime  of 
the  present  generation  the  old  spirit  was  revived, 
if  not  the  old  method,  and  I^ondon  answered 
to  the  call  on  the  south  African  veldt.  The  con- 
tinuity in  this  instance  is  remarkable,  and  it  is  quite 
obvious.  Modern  Londoners  never  asked  why  the 
city  of  London  should  send  its  own  contingent  to 
south  Africa.  They  acquiesced  with  a  silent  pride  in 
the  act.  They  unconsciously  felt  it  was  in  keeping 
with  the  ancient  customs  of  the  city.  The  city 
itself  probably  did  no  more  than  this,  and  the  silent 
obedience  to  the  unrecognised  force  of  historical 
influence  provides  the  historian  of  London  with  a 
master-key  w^hich  will  solve  many  a  problem  in  the 
story  we  are  going  to  see  unfolded. 

The  military  was,  however,  if  not  the  least,  certainly 
not  the  most  forceful  factor  in  London  polity.  The 
strategical  importance  of  the  city,  from  the  fateful 
events  of  a.d.  61  to  the  days  of  the  Civil  War,  was 
always  recognised,  as  Mr  Belloc  has  so  usefully  shown 
in  his  Warfare  in  England — recognised  by  the 
Roman  military  system,  by  the  great  Anglo-Saxon 
kings,  by  the  Danes,  by  William  the  Norman,  by 
the  later  military  commanders  during  the  Wars  of 
the  Roses,  and  during  the  Civil  War.  But  this  im- 
mense importance  did  not  twist  its  greater  destiny 


THE    POINT   OF    VIEW  7 

for  one  moment.     That   destiny  comes  to  iis  along 
the  stream  of  time,  and  it  is  not  miUtary. 

W^ith  the  element  of  continuity,  and  with  the 
accretions  at  different  stages  as  they  were  needed, 
London  finally  takes  the  position  of  an  English 
institution,  a  city-institution,  but  an  institution  dis- 
tinct and  separate  from  the  ordinary  city  organisa- 
tion. In  truth,  it  stands  by  itself,  not  to  be  classed 
as  one,  even  the  greatest  one,  of  the  cities  and  towns 
of  Britain,  but  to  stand  out  against  them  as  an  in- 
stitution developed  from  the  circumstances  which 
surrounded  her. 

London  never  compares  with  York,  Winchester, 
Colchester,  and  the  other  cities.  She  is  right  out  of 
range.  None  of  these  cities  has  the  political  import- 
ance of  London,  and  none  of  them  has  the  civic 
organisation  upon  which  the  political  importance  is 
based.  The  point  of  view  presented  by  the  full 
evidence  of  London  leads  us  not  to  any  sort  of 
comparison  with  other  English  cities,  but  into  a  field 
of  inquiry  of  wider  extent  and  scope,  that  field  of 
comparative  politics  whereby  London  enters  into 
the  city  influences  of  early  times,  the  influences  which 
settled  the  relationship  of  an  organised  progressive 
civilisation  to  a  pre-national  system  of  polity  inherited 
from  the  cradle  of  our  race.  London  is  not  a  city 
battling  for  pre-eminence  with  other  cities.  She  is 
a  city  battling  for  city  civilisation  against  tribal 
civilisation,  and  against  state  dominance.  She  wins 
in  the  great  struggle,  wins  gloriously,  and  proceeds 


8  LONDON 

to  take  her  rightful  place  in  the  nationhood  she  helps 
to  create. 

The  break-up  of  the  communal  power,  coming  with 
the  break-up  of  the  feudal  government,  is  the  biggest 
change  London  has  ever  experienced.  Saxon  in- 
coming, Danish  conquest,  Norman  control,  left 
London  with  her  own  ideals.  Tudor  changes 
affected  the  ideals.  Commerchilism  stepped  into 
the  breach  created  by  the  broken  communalism.  Fed 
at  first  by  the  splendid  imagination  of  Tudor  states- 
men and  Tudor  captains  and  adventurers,  fed  in 
Stuart  times  by  economic  forces  which  came  only 
gradually  to  be  understood,  it  was  a  disruptive  force. 
Even  then  London  did  not  lose  her  touch  of  continuity, 
and  we  have  constant  peeps  into  the  older  ideals 
whenever  the  city  government  found  itself  up  against 
the  State  government.  On  such  occasions  London 
always  fell  back  upon  her  most  ancient  city  ideal. 
Then  she  once  more  resumed  touch,  definite  and 
conscious  touch,  with  her  past.  Such  episodes  stand 
out  in  her  history  quite  plainly,  and  they  carry  on 
the  older  life  of  London  close  up  to  modern  days, 
certainly  to  the  Georgian  period,  when  we  see  the 
great  city  entering  into  parliamentary  politics  as  of 
old  she  entered  into  sovereign  polity,  proclaiming 
always  the  ancient  ideal.  And  what  is  so  fascinating 
throughout  all  these  phases  of  history  is  this  persis- 
tent element  of  continuity.  The  means  of  attaining 
the  end  changes,  but  the  desired  result  is  always  the 
same,  the   control    by  the   city  government   of  city 


THE    POINT   OF   VIEW  9 

affairs  for  the  good  of  the  city  and  its  citizens,  and 
the  identification  of  city  affairs  with  rights  which 
were  inherited  from  the  city  of  London  when  it  arose 
from  the  ashes  of  Roman  ruin  as  a  city-state  of 
Britain. 

This  point  of  view  is  held  by  no  historian  of 
Enghsh  events  and  institutions.  Two  historians, 
Henry  Charles  Coote  and  Frederic  Seebohm,  have 
endeavoured  to  prove  an  almost  complete  national 
and  racial  continuation  of  Roman  civilisation,  and  a 
continuation  of  the  Roman  system  of  agriculture 
and  agrarian  landholding.  1  distrust  both  these 
conclusions.^  Roman  civilisation  certainly  ceased  in 
Britain  with  the  Anglo-Saxon  conquest,  but  amidst 
the  wreckage  there  is  evidence,  1  think,  to  prove 
that  London  was  enabled  to  continue  its  use  of  the 
Roman  city  constitution  in  its  new  position  as  an 
English  city,  and  that  by  this  means  it  attained  its 
unique  position.  This  element  in  English  history  has 
never  been  considered ;  moreover,  it  is  overlaid  by 
other  points  of  view.  Unfortunately,  these  are  tinged 
with  that  false  conception  of  history  which  denies 
to  historical  continuity  the  great  force  which  it 
naturally  possesses.  Communities  do  not  lightly 
give  up  their  history.  They  may  misapply  its 
recorded  facts,  redate,  and  therefore  misdate,  some  of 
its   chief  events ;   they  may   transfer  from   the   per- 

'  I  discussed  Seebohm's  views  at  the  Folklore  Congress  in  1891 
(see  the  Trans,  of  the  Congress,  pp.  348-356),  and  I  have  not  seen 
any  reason  to  alter  my  views. 


10  LONDON 

sonages  of  one  age  to  those  of  another  age  acts  and 
doings  which  are  of  supreme  importance  in  their 
proper  place,  and  which  become  mischievous  in  any 
other  phice ;  but  they  do  not  surrender  easily  either 
the  surroundings  or  the  influences  of  earlier  ages. 
The  modern  historian  often  fails  to  understand  the 
force  at  the  back  of  history,  and  he  will  seek  for 
causes  in  every  direction  except  that  of  continuity 
of  historical  influence.  He  will  discover  contemporary 
origins  for  quite  ancient  factors,  and,  apart  from 
his  scornful  denial  of  the  influence  of  tradition  in 
keeping  alive  survivals  from  the  past,  he  will  deny 
the  influence  of  the  historic  sense  which  helps  to  the 
same  end.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  to  carry  the 
doctrine  of  historic  survival  too  far.  It  is  not 
possible,  I  think,  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  its 
operations  within  definitely  limited  areas. 

There  are  also  historical  prejudices.  It  is  necessary 
to  refer  to  these  because  historical  research  into 
British  institutions  is  only  in  its  infancy,  and  has  to 
do  battle  for  quite  elementary  principles.  It  has  to 
meet  the  backwash  from  the  pre-scientific  period  of 
historical  research,  a  period  which  ignored,  because 
it  did  not  understand,  archaeological  evidence,  and 
misused  the  evidence  of  tradition  so  grossly  as  to 
make  it  almost  impossible  now  to  make  good  the 
claim  of  tradition  to  be  used  at  all.  Druidism  in 
false  relationship  to  Celtic  worship ;  the  cult  of  Baal 
as  an  explanation,  based  upon  no  scientific  facts,  of 
certain  very  ancient   rites   of  tribal    and    household 


THE    POINT   OF   VIEW  11 

worship  ;  Celtic  civilisation  as  the  product  of  national 
instead  of  tribal  organisation,  are  the  chief  results 
of  the  misuse  of  tradition  for  over  a  century.  They 
were  disastrous  results,  for  the  reaction  against  these 
rightly  discarded  conclusions  has  affected  modern 
scientific  inquiry.  Palgrave,  Kemble,  Freeman, 
Green,  and  Stubbs  will  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  traditional  survival,  and  at  the  hands  of  these 
historians  we  have  to  consider  points  of  view  which, 
on  whatever  grounds  they  are  formed,  have  at  least 
this  common  feature,  that  they  do  not  take  in  all  that 
is  historical  in  London.  Each  authority  deals  with 
bits  of  history,  not  with  the  whole  of  it. 

Palgrave  has  the  widest  range,  and,  while  recognising 
a  position  for  Celtic  London,  assumes  the  destruction 
of  Roman  London.  "In  tracing  the  decline  of  the 
British  power  it  would  afford  a  landmark  if  we  could 
ascertain  when  London,  which  always  preponderated 
over  the  other  cities  of  the  island,  was  lost  to  the 
Britons."^  Kemble  approaches  from  an  earlier  period, 
and  argues  that  "  Ceesar  says  indeed  nothing  of 
London,  yet  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  this  was  an 
unimportant  place  even  in  his  day,"  and  then  goes 
on  to  argue  with  great  clearness  and  conciseness  that 
London,  with  all  other  Roman  cities  in  Britain,  ceased 
its  existence."  Freeman  is  far  more  drastic.  "  The 
English  town,  the  English  jiort  or  borough,  is  a  thing 

^   Palgrave,  English  Coynmontvealfli,  vol.  i.  p.  41 4. 
-   Kemble,  Saxons  in   Fmgland,   vol.  ii.   j)p.   266  (and  see  note  on 
p.  267),  291  et  seqq. 


12  LONDON 

wholly  of  English  growth,  and  nothing  can  be  more 
vain  than  the  attempts  of  ingenious  men  to  trace  up 
the  origin  of  English  municipalities  to  a  Roman 
source " ;  and  though  he  admits  "  the  greatness  of 
London,"  points  out  its  special  power  in  the  election 
of  sovereigns,  and  refers  to  its  special  legislation  under 
^thelstan  and  iEthelred,  there  is  no  sign  that  he 
appreciates  the  true  value  of  these  facts. ^  There  is 
no  sign,  indeed,  that  he  appreciates  what  he  recognises 
so  fully,  the  unnoted  history  of  the  sixth  century.^ 
Bishop  Stubbs'  view  is  dominated  by  his  conception 
of  the  Teutonic  organisation,  which  left  London  at  the 
end  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period  "a  bundle  of  com- 
munities, townships,  parishes,  and  lordships  of  which 
each  has  its  own  constitution  "  ;  and  although  he  grants 
it,  with  York  and  some  others,  "  a  continuous  political 
existence,"  he  points  out  that  these  English  cities 
"  wisely  do  not  venture,  like  some  of  the  towns  of 
southern  France,  to  claim  an  unbroken  succession  from 
the  Roman  municipality."^  It  is  only  when  we  come 
to  John  Richard  Green  that  we  arrive  at  a  really  new 
factor  from  the  historian's  side.  He  shows  descrip- 
tively that  London,  the  great  military  stronghold  of 
London,  if  it  fell  to  English  conquest,  fell  after  a 
hundred  years  of  almost  independent  existence ;  and 
he  fully  admits  the  force  of  the  fact  that  no  record 

1  Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,  vol.  v.  pp.  465-467. 

-   Freeman,    Western   Europe  in  the  Fifth   Century,   p.    143,   for  an 
appreciation  of  the  vacuum  in  English  history. 

2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Englcmd,  vol.  i.  pp.  404,  62. 


THE   POINT   OF    VIEW  13 

and  no  evidence  remain  of  its  capture  or  surrender. 
Yet  even  Green  denies  to  I^ondinium  any  place  in 
English  history/ 

The  conclusions  of  the  great  historians  do  not, 
however,  cover  the  whole  ground  of  possible  events. 
The  Romans  left  Britain  in  a.d.  410.  The  last 
mention  of  London  before  that  event  was  in  3G9, 
and  the  first  mention  after  that  event  was  in  457. 
It  would  be  unsafe  to  argue  that  between  369 
and  410  London  was  otherwise  than  a  Roman 
city  in  a  Roman  province.  Ammianus  Marcellinus 
supplies  the  earlier  date  when  he  records  the  renam- 
ing of  the  ancient  city  of  Londinium  by  its  new 
name  of  Augusta.-  There  is  the  note  of  success  in 
the  historian's  words,  a  success  which  looked  forward 
to  a  future  when  the  ancient  city  of  Londinium 
would  justify  her  new  name  of  Augusta.  From  410 
to  457  is  only  forty-seven  years,  and  the  record  of 
457  is  as  distinctly  against  the  probability  either  of 
destruction  or  desertion,  as  the  record  of  369  has 
proved  to  be.  It  comes  to  us  from  the  Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle.  "Here  Hengist  and  iEsc  fought  against 
the  Britons  at  the  place  which  is  called  Crecganford, 
and  there  slew  four  thousand  men ;  and  then  the 
Britons  forsook  Kent-land  and  in  great  fear  fled  to 
London."  London,  therefore,  sheltered  the  beaten 
army,  and  must  have  been  in  its  full  strength  for 
the  purpose.     If  the  hundred  years  of  silent  history 

1  Green,  Making  of  England,  pp.  98-1 1 1. 
-  Lib.  xxvii.  cap.  viii.,  and  xxviii.  cap.  iii. 


14  LONDON 

is  to  be  fixed  at  457-560,  as  Green  apparently  argues,^ 
events  do  not  help  his  conclusion.     None  of  them 
tells  for  destruction.     Collectively  they  tell  for  active 
organisation   and  life,  and  individually,  even  if  the 
latter  point  is  rejected  altogether,  they  tell  for  active 
organisation.     Green  fixed  his  last  date,  560,  by  the 
progress    of    Anglo-Saxon    conquest,   but   the   next 
historical  dates  after  457  belong  to  the  early  seventh 
century,  and  are   very  confusing.     In  604,  says  the 
Chronicle,  "^Ethelbert  gave   INIellitus  a  bishop's  see 
in  London";  and  Beda  records  of  the  same  year  that 
London  was  the  metropolis  of  Sseberct,  king  of  Essex.^ 
In  616  we   are   told   that    "at   that   time   the  men 
of  London,  where   Mellitus   had    been    before,  were 
heathens."     Evidently  events  were  moving,  but  they 
do  not  appear  to  be  more  than  phases  in  the  struggle 
for   the   sovereignty  of  a  conquered    district  which 
should  include  London.     There  is  no  word  as  to  the 
conquest  or  the  ruling  of  London  itself.     The  king  of 
Kent  and  the  king  of  Essex,  each  in  his  turn,  added 
it  to  their  kingdom.     They  would  not  have  struggled 
for  a  destroyed   city.     They  claimed   it  as  an  asset 
in  their  cause,  and  the  terms  of  the  claim,  "metropolis 
Lundonia   civitas,"    are    sufficient    to    discount    the 
argument  for  destruction. 

There  is  another  argument.  That  the  successive 
conquests  of  the  country  by  Anglo-Saxon,  Dane, 
and   Norman  means  also   continuous   occupation    of 

1   Making  of  England,  \).  109- 

-  Beda,  Hisl.  Ecclex.,  lib.  ii.  cap.  3. 


THE    POINT   OF   VIEW  15 

London  through  the  changes  is  certain  in  the  two 
last  cases.  The  only  difficulty  that  arises  is  in  respect 
of  the  Anglo-Saxon,  and  this  can  be  met  by  an  his- 
torical parallelism.  The  Danes  were  kept  out  of 
London  until  London  accepted  them  as  overlords. 
The  Normans  were  kept  out  of  I^ondon  until  they 
entered  by  agreement,  ^Villiam  treating  wdth  Ansgar 
the  great  sheriff  on  terms  almost  of  sov^ereign  equality. 
This  great  parallel  means  a  continuity  of  policy  and 
power,  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be  an  absolute  denial 
of  historical  influences  not  to  allow  such  a  parallel  to 
cover  the  earliest  as  w^ell  as  the  two  latest  of  the 
three  occasions. 

This  leaves  an  independent,  unknow^n  existence 
of  a  hundred  years  which  has  to  be  reckoned  with. 
It  is  a  period  devoid  of  recorded  history,  but  full  of 
history  nevertheless.  It  has  much  to  do  with  what 
will  be  said  in  the  follow^ing  pages.  It  belongs  to 
London,  and  to  London  alone,  and  though  it  w^as 
a  troubled  and  anxious  period,  there  is  room  in  it 
for  the  birth  of  a  very  wide  range  of  facts  w'hich 
lifts  London  history  out  of  touch  w^ith  the  history 
of  other  Roman  towns  of  the  period  in  Britain. 

This  period  contains  one  factor  of  supreme  im- 
portance, the  tradition  of  London — a  tradition  w^hich 
illustrates  the  passing  of  London  from  the  position  of 
a  city  of  the  Roman  Empire,  connected  by  roadways 
to  the  mother  city  of  Rome,  to  the  position  of  a 
city-state  in  Britain  disconnected  from  all  outside 
states  or  state  governments.    The  new  position  needed 


16  LONDON 

tradition  to  help  it  on  its  way.  All  cities  have  their 
traditions  —  Athens,  Rome,  Paris,  Bath,  Caerleon, 
Silchester,  York—  and  the  extent  to  which  tradition 
works  itself  into  the  city  life  is  the  test  of  much 
that  cannot  be  recovered  from  any  other  source  than 
tradition,  of  events,  indeed,  which  history  has  wholly 
neglected.  It  is  perfectly  idle  to  neglect  these  tradi- 
tions. They,  at  all  events,  are  the  beliefs  which  citizens 
worked  into  their  lives,  and  upon  which  they  built 
much  of  their  later  history.  That  London,  by  the  mere 
fact  of  continued  life,  has  become  separated  from  her 
earliest  history  is  most  true.  That  she  has  lost  touch 
with  her  traditions  is  not  true.  They  contain  just 
that  impact  of  truth,  just  that  kernel  of  substantive 
fact,  which  will  enable  the  scientific  inquirer  to  dis- 
cover the  lost  threads  which  connect  broken  periods. 
Tradition  is  fed  by  the  feelings  of  generations  of 
people,  not  by  the  emotions,  the  exultations,  or  the 
disasters  of  a  moment  or  even  of  a  period.  And  the 
strongest  feeling  to  generate  and  to  keep  tradition 
alive  is  the  feeling  of  love  for  the  object  of  tradition. 

There  has  always  existed  a  feeling  of  love  for 
London — by  its  citizens  and  by  the  country.  The 
love  of  citizens  for  their  city,  as  it  has  been  so  often 
expressed  in  song  and  narrative  of  modern  times,  as 
it  was  so  wonderfully  recorded  in  the  twelfth  century 
by  the  historian  of  King  Stephen's  reign,  is  carried 
back  by  tradition  to  the  far  older  and  interesting  period 
of  Roman  London.  Geoffrey  of  JNIonmouth  preserves 
in    the   story  of   King   Lud    the   traditional   love  of 


THE    POINT   OF   VIEW  17 

London,  "  Albeit  he  had  many  cities  in  his  dominion, 
yet  this  did  he  love  above  all  other  " — and  this  links 
on  with  recorded  history  in  that  interesting  passage 
where  Tacitus,  the  first  historian  to  mention  London, 
tells  how  there  were  inhabitants  of  London  in  a.d.  61 
who  stayed  behind  to  face  the  storm  with  which 
Boudicca  threatened  them  because  of  "  their  attach- 
ment to  the  place."  This  love  of  London,  continuous 
from  the  earliest  ages,  bursts  into  expression  whenever 
Londoners  have  become  aware  of  their  great  city,  and 
we  shall  come  across  periods  when  this  becoming 
aware  of  London  has  played  a  great  part  in  contem- 
porary events.  It  will  play  a  further  part  yet  once 
again. 

The  London  which  will  in  this  way  come  under 
review  in  these  pages  will,  it  is  obvious,  not  be  a 
complete  London.  The  story  will  be  one  of  events, 
not  of  places,  one  of  special  events,  not  all  events.  It 
will  relate  to  one  side  of  London  only,  but  a  side 
which,  although  the  greatest,  has  been  neglected  and 
denied  and  scouted.  It  needs  to  be  emphasised. 
In  attempting  this,  details  which  would  assist  the 
argument,  and  nearly  all  which  might  be  held  to 
resist  the  argument,  will  be  omitted.  This  is  a 
necessary  sacrifice  to  space.  But  omissions  such  as 
these  do  not  affect  the  main  point.  They  would 
divert  the  stream  of  argument  at  various  points  and 
compel  consideration  of  the  means  to  bring  it  back 
again.  But  they  would  at  no  stage  break  up  the 
argument.     There  would  remain  the  strong  element 


18  LONDON 

of  continuity  underlying  everything.  London  begins 
on  II  great  note  of  dominance ;  she  proceeds  through 
the  ages  on  the  same  note ;  she  finishes  within  sight 
of  modern  days  and  in  touch  with  modern  poHtics  on 
precisely  the  same  note.  And  that  note,  unbroken  in 
its  force  and  its  direction,  commands  the  historic 
setting  of  all  the  periods  and  all  the  changes. 

It  will  be  gathered  from  this  that  the  problem  of 
London's  history  is  a  matter  for  argument  as  well  as 
of  record  and  evidence.  The  history  does  not  begin 
all  over  again,  wdth  a  new  first  chapter,  w^ien  succes- 
sive conquerors  of  the  country  have  succeeded  in 
their  efforts.  It  is  the  question  of  continuity  from 
one  of  these  stages  to  the  next  which  is  so  necessary 
to  be  considered,  and  if  possible  solved.  It  has 
hitherto  not  even  been  considered.  Dealing  with 
or  thinking  of  London  in  bits  is  of  no  use  whatever. 
To  get  at  the  heart  of  it  we  can  only  consider  it  as 
a  great  city  with  a  great  history.  The  task  before 
us  is  by  no  means  easy ;  no  less  than  the  linking 
up  of  modern  London  with  ancient  London  of  all 
periods  ;  but  it  is  worth  the  doing. 

I  shall  work  through  the  elements  of  continuity  in 
all  their  aspects.  I  am  going  to  assert  that  there  was 
so  definite  a  Celtic  conception  of  London  that  it,  in 
a  special  and  comprehensive  sense,  influenced  the 
position  of  Roman  London  ;  and  that  when  Roman 
London  was  freed  from  the  sovereignty  of  Rome  this 
Celtic  influence  asserted  its  dominating  force  and 
helped    to    make   post-Roman    London    a    primary 


THE   POINT   OF   VIEW  19 

institution  of  the  country.  I  am  going  to  assert, 
further,  that  Roman  London,  thus  influenced,  in  its 
turn  dominated  the  inner  working  of  medieval 
London,  and  in  essence  dominates  modern  London, 
first  in  the  silent  general  feeling  of  protection  for  the 
ancient  city,  and  then  in  the  survival  of  the  powers  of 
action,  nev^er  removed  by  the  state,  still  residing  in 
the  government  of  the  city.  I  am  going  to  assert 
still  further  that  mediaeval  London  obtained  much  of 
its  power  by  adding  to  its  old  life  the  necessary 
medieeval  forces,  and  that  it  was  the  great  glory  of 
mediaeval  municipal  statesmanship  to  have  recognised 
these  two  agencies  as  correlative  influences  from 
which  London  would  gain  new  positions  which,  as 
it  proved,  strengthened  and  consolidated  its  powers 
and  duties.  I  am  going,  finally,  to  assert  that  even 
when  breaking  away  in  Tudor,  Stuart,  and  Georgian 
days  from  almost  the  whole  of  her  communal  life, 
she  still  carried  on  her  main  position  of  a  city  with 
attributes  of  a  city-state  derived  from  her  original 
position  as  a  Roman  city.  London  is  in  every  sense 
of  the  term  a  city  of  two  great  empires — shall  we  say 
one  of  the  connecting  links  between  two  great 
empires  ? — the  Roman  and  the  British.  To  ignore 
this  great  position  is  to  ignore  the  keynote  to  all 
London  history.  The  proof  is  contained  in  the  long 
line  of  continuity  from  Roman  London  to  modern 
London,  and  it  is  this  continuity  which  is  the  main 
subject  of  this  book. 


CHAPTER   11 

CELTIC    ORIGINS 

It  is  necessary  to  state  quite  definitely  that  London 
was  originally  a  stronghold  of  the  Celts,  because  this 
fact  has  been  denied  by  some  authorities  and  mini- 
mised by  all,  and  it  is  an  essential  beginning  to  her 
history.  There  are  not  only  material  evidences  of 
such  a  beginning,  but  the  total  evidence  accounts 
for  some  portion  of  her  Roman  history,  and  almost 
entirely  for  her  post- Roman  history  before  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  domination. 

London  is  known  by  her  own  Celtic  name,  and 
possesses  two  other  Celtic  names  of  importance,  Lud 
and  Belinus,  both  of  these  latter  adding,  by  reason  of 
later  uses,  the  Anglo-Saxon  suffix  "  gate."  There  is 
dispute  among  philologists  about  the  meaning  of 
London  as  a  Celtic  name-word,  and  about  the  deriva- 
tion of  Belinus,  but  there  is  no  question  about  Lud. 
It  is  a  recognised  god-name  of  the  Celts  of  considerable 
importance ;  Belinus  may  also  be  a  god-name,  but  of 
minor  importance.^     This  series  of  Celtic  names  gives 

1  Belenus,  Belinus,  or  Belis  was  one  of  the  greatest  Celtic  gods 
and  identified  with  Apollo.  He  was  mentioned  as  a  god  of  the 
Gauls  by  Tertullian  (^Apolog.,  cap.  xxiv.)  and  Julius  Capitolinus.     Cf. 

20 


CELTIC    ORIGINS  21 

us  a  Celtic  stronghold  and  a  Celtic  religious  cult,  a 
combination  of  two  factors  in  the  earliest  history  of 
London  which  cannot  be  overlooked  and  should  not  be 
minimised,  and  which  in  reality  form  th©  centre  points 
for  whatever  evidences  of  Celtic  London  remain  to  us. 
The  site  is  the  first  consideration.  The  point  to 
note  is  that  it  has  been  an  occupation-ground  of 
peoples  from  the  earliest  known  times  of  human 
occupation  of  distinct  territory,  that  is,  during  the 
palasolithic  age  and  the  neolithic  age,  as  the  discoveries 
of  implements  of  these  two  ages  abundantly  show. 
This  is  evidence  sufficient  to  prove  the  capacity  of 
the  site,  and  it  would  have  been  strange  indeed  if  the 
Celt  had  neglected  it.  He  did  not  neglect  it.  All 
over  the  kingdom  such  sites  have  been  occupied  by 
the  Celts,  and  the  remains  of  their  occupation  have 
formed  an  important  chapter  in  archaeological  re- 
search. The  presence  of  the  Celt  in  the  surrounding 
area  is  shown  by  place-names  and  by  ethnology.  The 
names  of  Walworth  in  the  south  and  Isledon  ( Isling- 
ton) in  the  north,  together  with  Caen  wood,  are 
the  principal  philological  items.  The  ethnological 
data  consist  of  a  strongly  marked  island  of  brunetness 
just  north  of  London.  Two  counties,  Hertfordshire 
and  Buckinghamshire,  are  as  dark  as  Wales,  and  "  all 
investigation  goes  to  prove  that  this  brunet  outcrop  is 
a  reality."     It  is  entirely  severed  from  the  main  centre 

Herodian,  lib.  viii.  ;  Pritchard^  Physical  Hist,  of  Mankind,  vol.  iii. 
p.  186.  Nennius,  §19,  mentions  a  Bellinus,  son  of  Minocaniuis,  as 
a  king  of  Britain  (see  Notes  to  the  Irish  Nennius,  p.  xxiii).   • 


22  LONDON 

of  dark  eyes  and  hair  in  the  west  by  an  intermediate 
zone,  and  the  people  in  this  vicinity  are  very  much 
shorter  than  those  who  surround  them.  The  explana- 
tion, says  Dr  Ripley,^  is  simple.  The  fens  on  the 
north,  London  on  the  south,  with  dense  forests,  left 
this  zone  of  population  relatively  quiet,  and  they  tell 
us  now  of  the  Celticism  of  the  district  round  London. 
To  these  sources  of  evidence  must  be  added  that  of 
the  early  geography  of  London,  which  exactly  fits 
with  the  description  by  Ctesar  of  the  position  of  a 
British  oppidum.  Although  so  well  known,  the 
passage  from  Caesar  is  worth  quoting.  When  stopped 
at  the  Thames,  "  he  learned  from  envoys  that  the 
stronghold  (oppidum)  of  Cassivellaunus,  which  was 
protected  by  woods  and  marshes,  was  not  far  off,  and 
that  a  considerable  number  of  men  and  of  cattle  had 
assembled  in  it.  The  Britons  apply  the  name  of 
stronghold  (oppidum)  to  any  woodland  spot  difficult 
of  access,  and  fortified  with  a  rampart  and  trench,  to 
which  they  are  in  the  habit  of  resorting  in  order  to 
escape  a  hostile  raid.  Csesar  found  that  the  place 
was  of  great  natural  strength  and  well  fortified."- 
This  exactly  describes  the  position  of  Celtic  London, 
how  exactly  may  be  measured  by  the  geographical 
research  of  J.  R.  Green.^  This  conclusion  is  not  only 
the  initial  proof  of  the  existence  of  Celtic  London, 
but  it  goes  far   to   disprove   the   generally  accepted 

^   Ripley,  Races  of  Europe,  pp.  322-3,  521-2. 

-  De  bello  Gnllico,  lib.  v.  21  (Rice  Holmes'  trans.). 

2  Gret'ii,  The  Making  of  England,  p.  98,  and  the  map  on  p.  99- 


CELTIC    ORIGINS  23 

view  that  Veriilam  was  the  oppidum  of  CassiveUaunus. 
CiEsar  would  not  have  proceeded  to  \"ei'uhim  with 
such  a  stronghold  as  London  behind  him,  and  the 
geographical  contrast  between  London  and  \"erulam 
gives  sufficient  reason  for  presenting  such  a  problem. 
London  occupies  a  strategical  position  similar  to  that 
always  adopted  by  the  Celts.  \"erulam  is  at  the  foot 
of  a  commanding  position,  and  does  not  answer  to 
anything  Celtic.  The  conclusion  seems  irresistible 
that  London  and  not  \"erulam  was  the  stronghold 
which  stood  the  shock  of  Roman  conquest  when 
Cffisar  took  the  oppidum  of  CassiveUaunus.^ 

IMuch  has  been  made  of  the  fact  that  London 
was  not  a  colonia  of  the  Roman  Empire  as  were 
Lincoln,  Colchester,  York,  and  Gloucester.  Whatever 
this  may  indicate  from  the  Roman  point  of  view,  it 
certainly  adds  to  the  evidence  of  the  important  posi- 
tion of  London  in  Celtic  Britain.  Professor  Reid 
puts  it  very  clearly :  "  The  treatment  of  London 
by  the  Romans  is  an  unexplained  anomaly."^  The 
anomaly  to  be  explained  must  first  be  understood, 
and  I  think  it  can  be  shown  that  the  only  reasonable 
explanation  is  derived  from  the  Celtic  side  of  the 
question  and  not  from  the  Roman.  Roman  law  and 
government  have  been  assiduously  studied  from  the 
side  of  Roman  history,  inscriptions,  and  charters,  and 

1  This  view  was  held  by  General  Pitt-Rivers,  Anthrop.  Rev.,  vol.  v. 
p.  Ixxviii,  and  Mr  Lewin,  Arcluvologia,  vol.  xl.  pp.  65-6.  On  the 
other  side  is  Mr  Page  and  the  Berks  Archaeological  Society  (see 
Trans,  of  that  Society,  vol.  xiv.  pj).  24-5-250) 

-'   Reid,  MiDiicipalifie.s-  of  l/ie  Roman  Empire,  p.  229. 


24  LONDON 

only  very  slightly  from  the  side  of  the  native  peoples 
who  were  absorbed  into  the  Empire.  It  is  on  this 
side,  the  Celtic  side,  that  the  anomaly  of  London  can 
be  explained. 

The  only  titles  which  are  applied  to  London  in 
Roman  historical  documents  are  oppidum  and  civitas,^ 
and  finally  it  received  the  new  name  Augusta,  sharing 
this  name  with  Treveri,  the  greatest  of  the  cities  of 
Gaul.  There  is  no  defined  Roman  status  in  these 
titles,  and  we  can  only  conclude  that  it  was  one  of 
those  municipia  civium  Romanorum,  a  community 
of  the  self-governing  type  to  which  Mr  Hardy  has 
introduced  us.'  Aulus  Gellius  gives  an  illuminating 
distinction  between  the  municipium  and  the  colonia : 
the  former  was  taken  into  the  Roman  state  from 
without,  the  latter   was   an  offshoot   from   within ;  ^ 

^  Coote,  Romans  of  Britain,  p.  345,  quoting  Eumenius  in  his  pane- 
gyric of  Constantius  Caesar  and  the  record  of  the  Synod  of  Aries. 

2  Hardy,  Roman  Laws  and  Charters,  vol.  i.  pp.  'iQ,  145.  So  early 
as  the  Lex  Agraria  of  b.c.  Ill  we  have  colonies,  municipia,  and 
"towns  in  the  position  of  municipia  or  colonies"  (Hardy,  op.  cit., 
p.  66). 

^  Aulus  Gellius,  Nodes  Atticce, \ih.  xvi.  cap.  l.S.  Cf.  Festus:  "Muni- 
cipium id  genus  hominum  dicitur,  qui  cum  Romam  venissent,  neque 
cives  Romani  essent,  participes  tamen  fuerunt  omnium  rerum  ad 
munus  fungendum  una  cum  civibus  Romanis,  pra?terquam  de  suffragio 
ferendo,  aut  magistratu  capiendo  ;  sicut  fuerunt  Fundani,  Formiani, 
Cumani,  Acerrani,  Lanuvini,  Tusculani,  qui  post  aliquot  annos  cives 
Rom.  efFecti  sunt.  Alio  modo  cum  id  genus  hominum  definitur, 
quorum  civitas  universa  in  civitatem  Romanam  venit,  ut  Aricini, 
Cjerites,  Anagnini.  Tertio,  cum  id  genus  hominum  definitur,  qui  ad 
civitatem  Romanam  ita  venerunt,  uti  municipia  essent  sua  cujusque 
civitatis,  et  coloniae,  ut  Tiburtes,  Praenestini,  Pisani,  Arpinates, 
Nolani,  Bononienses,  Placentini,  Nepesini,  Sutrini,  Lucenses." 


CELTIC   ORIGINS  25 

the  former  represents  the  inclusion  in  the  Empire  of 
;i  more  or  less  free  population,  governed  by  tribal 
institutions  in  the  western  Empire  and  by  city  institu- 
tions in  the  eastern,  the  latter  was  founded  upon  the 
settlement  of  Roman  legionaries  upon  a  conquered 
territory  from  which  the  original  inhabitants  were 
deported.  London  was  definitely  not  a  colonia.  It 
was  no  doubt  in  the  position  of  a  municipium. 

Now  this  condition  of  London  in  "  the  position  of 
a  municipium,"  but  not  formally  recognised  as  such, 
exactly  meets  its  several  positions  :  as  a  great  military 
centre  adapted  from  the  oppidum  of  the  Celts ;  its 
rapid  rise  to  a  great  commercial  centre  under  the 
government  of  the  Romans ;  and  its  final  status  as  a 
specially  named  city  of  the  Empire,  Augusta;  and  I 
can  therefore  think  of  the  Roman  status  of  London 
as  never  recognised  constitutionally.  The  question 
thus  raised  is  undoubtedly  complicated  and  not  alto- 
gether certain  owing  to  lack  of  evidence.  Britain 
to  the  Romans  was  ever  a  province  that  required 
keeping  in  order  and  not  a  country  to  care  much 
about.  "  Supposing  I  begin  thinking  about  the  island 
of  Britain,"  writes  Cicero,  "  will  its  image  fly  at  once 
into  my  mind  ? "  ^  Certainly  the  differing  conditions 
obtaining  under  the  Empire  in  Greece,  Africa,  and 
Spain  should  cause  us  to  pause  before  accepting  the 
merely  word-value  of  Latin  diplomata.  Rome  always 
allowed  a  certain  amount  of  independent   develop- 

'   Cicero's-  Letters,  No.    Dxxx.  of  Shuokburgirs  translation,  vol.  iii. 
p.  175. 


26 


LONDON 


ment.^  It  was  one  of  its  greatest  political  assets, 
and  just  as  Lugduniim.  where  the  Celtic  Lud  was 
worshipped,  obtained  quite  an  exceptional  status,^ 
so  I  believe  London,  where  also  the  Celtic  Lud 
was  worshipped,  attained  to  an  exceptional  status. 
Formally  it  came  under  the  Lex  Julia  Municipalis, 
as  did  "  all  municipalities  of  Roman  citizens  wherever 

and  whenever  coming 
into  existence  "  ; "  actu- 
ally it  retained  much  of 
its  older  influence  as  a 
British  oppidum.  It  is 
thus  that  the  Celtic  side 
of  Roman  I.,ondon  is  re- 
vealed by  the  scanty  his- 
torical evidence  which 
exists,  and  when  to  this 
are  added  the  results  of 
the  study  of  the  tradi- 

Cinerary  urn  of  the  late  Celtic  period  found      tioU    of    LoudoU,    wllich 

in  London,  in  the  Guildhall  Museum. 

reveals  at  every  stage 
its  Celtic  origin,  the  story  is  much  more  complete 
and  consistent. 

We  next  turn  to  the  question  of  the  occupied  site. 
Sir  Christopher  Wren  discovered  British  graves  below 
the    Roman    level,   distinguished    by   their   remains.* 

^    Reid,  Municipalities  of  Roman  Empire,  p.  127. 
-  Hardy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii.  p.  152. 
•^  Hardy,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i.  j).  1 16. 

''  Cinerary  urns  and  other  pottery  of  late  Celtie  period  are  pre- 
served in  the  (luildhall  Museum  (see  Catalogue,  pp.  19-22). 


CELTIC    ORIGINS 


27 


There  is  some  dispute  us  to  the  accuracy  of  AVren's 
chissification  of  these  remains,  hut  my  rediscovery  in 
the  hbrary  of  Mr  SaulFs  oritvinal  discovery  of  remains 
of  the  hut  circle  of  the  British  on  the  virgin  soil  of 
London,  which  he  inspected  and  visited  on  several 
occasions  during  excavations  for  sewerage  in  Cheap- 
side,  cannot  be  disputed.^  General  Pitt-Rivers  dis- 
covered remains  which  he  considered,  with  his  wide 
experience  and  minute 
care,  to  be  relics  of  pile 
dwellings  on  the  banks 
of  the  Walbrook  river.- 
Mr  Reginald  Smitli,  in- 
vestigating the  course  of 
Roman  roads,  insists  upon 
tlie  strong  evidence  some 
of  tliese  reveal  of  having 
been  constructed  on  the 
site  of  British  trackways 
leading  to  and  entering 
London/ 

There  is  thus  philological,  ethnological,  and  arcluuo- 
logical  evidence  of  Celtic  London.  The  remarkable 
thing  is  that  it  exists  at  all.  It  comes  from  London's 
remotest  past,  protected  by  the  working  of  successive 

^  I  have  dealt  witli  this  im])ortant  and  neglected  piece  of  evi- 
dence in  my  Ma/d/ig  of  London,  j).  38. 

-  Anthrop.  Rev.,  vol.  v.  p.  Ixxi^  and  accejjted  by  Dr  Munro, 
Lake  Dwellings  of  Europe,  pp.  -idO-iGi,  and  Ancient  Scollisli  Lake 
Dwellings,  pp.  291-296. 

■^    Vicl.  Hist.  London,  pp.  1-42. 


Vase  of  late  Celtic  period  found  in 
London,  in  the  Guildhall  Museum. 


28  LONDON 

ages,  but  also  hidden  by  the  ages.  Not  sufficiently 
hidden,  however,  to  prevent  the  recognition  of  a  tribal 
stronghold  such  as  still  remains  in  other  parts  of 
Britain,  as,  for  instance,  at  Maiden  Castle  near 
Dorchester,  where  the  tribesmen  of  the  Celts  con- 
structed their  defensive  works  for  protection  against 
tribe  enemies  of  their  own  race,  and,  as  they  thought, 
against  enemies  of  an  imperial  race  which  in  due 
course  overran  and  crumpled  up  their  tribalism. 

There  is,  however,  something  nearer  home  than  the 
examples  of  the  great  Celtic  strongholds  still  surviving 
in  remote  parts  of  Britain,  and  we  find  it  in  the  Thames 
valley  of  to-day,  where  the  position  occupied  by  the 
site  of  Celtic  London  is  pictured  for  us  in  miniature. 
Coming  up  the  Thames  by  sail  or  by  steam,  in  the 
wide  lagoon  formed  by  the  shallow  waters  of  the  river 
in  the  lower  reaches  there  is  presented  a  sight  which  in 
the  earliest  period  must  have  been  much  like  what  was 
presented  as  far  up  as  London.  Travelling  by  the  rail- 
way, one  first  recognises  the  higher  land-sites  rising 
from  the  Essex  Flats  on  the  banks  of  the  lagoon  waters. 
WestclifF  is  the  first  example.  Pitsea,  Laindon,  and 
other  places  follow,  their  natural  conditions  being  still 
undestroyed.  At  Prittlewell  there  are  still  remains 
of  an  entrenchment,  the  enclosure  being  situated 
on  rising  ground  and  of  somewhat  oval  shape ;  at 
Tilbury  there  is  a  fosse  with  a  broad  bank  on  its 
outer  side  formed  by  the  ridge  of  a  steep  hillside, 
rising  abruptly  above  the  Thames  valley.  London 
was  only  another  such  example  as  these,  occupying, 


CELTIC    ORIGINS 


29 


30  LONDON 

however,  a  more  strategical  position,  and  commanding 
one  of  the  river  crossings.     (See  Appendix  I.) 

Interesting  as  these  examples  are,  they  do  not 
give  an  adequate  idea  of  the  London  stronghold. 
They  are  too  much  in  miniature.  Fortunately  we 
can  turn  to  examples  above  London  which  represent 
closer  parallels  to  I^ondon.  The  most  important  of 
these  strongholds  is  that  of  Long  Wittenham,  to 
which  Mr  Haverfield  has  added  other  examples  at 
Appleford  and  Radley.^  Of  Wittenham,  Sir  Arthur 
Evans  writes  :  "  The  round  hut  circles  of  the  Britons 
are  seen  before  our  eyes,  yielding  to  the  rectangular 
buildings  and  enclosures  of  the  later  Romanised 
inhabitants."  ^  And  according  to  the  best  authorities 
there  is  certainly  no  site  in  the  country  which  more 
fully  satisfies  the  conditions  usually  found  present  in 
British  centres.^  Close  to  the  junction  of  the  Thame 
and  I  sis,  it  is  precisely  the  kind  of  spot  that  was  chosen 
by  all  Celtic  races  for  their  chief  settlements.  The 
hut  circle  floors  consist  of  very  thin  stones,  and  the 
superstructure  was  of  wattle  and  daub,  fragments  of 
which  have  been  discovered.*  There  is  no  questioning 
the  evidence  which  these  facts  afford.  The  Thames 
below  London  and  the  Thames  above  London  con- 
tained Celtic  strongholds  on  the  heights  which  com- 
manded the  river,  and  it  is    impossible   therefore  to 

1  Fid.  Hist,  of  Berkshire,  vol.  i.  pp.  197,  219-222. 

2  Times,  1 8th  Sept.  J  893, 
^   Tillies,  .30 th  Sept.  1893. 

^   Dr    Haverfield's   aceount  is  in  Proc.  Sue.   Aniiq.,   2iid  ser,   vol. 
xviii.  pp.  10-16,  with  a  most  useful  map. 


CELTIC    ORIGINS 


31 


32  LONDON 

imagine  that  the  London  height  was  not  similarly 
occupied.  Celtic  London  was  not  only  a  stronghold 
formed  out  of  the  natural  conditions  of  the  site,  it 
was  a  defensive  position  necessary  to  the  settlers  on 
the  northern  side  of  the  Thames  lagoon.^ 

It  may  be,  after  the  researches  of  Dr  Philip 
Norman  and  Mr  F.  W.  Reader,"  that  the  conclusions 
of  General  Pitt-Rivers  as  to  pile  dwellings  in  the 
Walbrook  will  have  to  be  given  up.  But  it  does 
not  appear  to  me  that  the  evidence  for  the  Roman 
system  of  drainage  is  necessarily  evidence  against  the 
pile  dwellings.  There  is  ample  room  for  both 
drainage  and  pile  dwelling  in  these  discoveries,  and 
there  is  still  one  important  fact  to  get  over — the 
existence  of  so  many  human  skulls  without  any 
remains  of  the  rest  of  the  skeletons.  These,  at  all 
events,  cannot  be  of  Roman  origin.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  may  be  of  Celtic  origin,  owing  to  the 
Celtic  practice  of  taking  the  skulls  of  defeated 
enemies  and  hanging  them  as  trophies  in  the  dwell- 

1  The  use  of  terms  belonging  to  a  late  period  to  describe  con- 
ditions of  an  early  period  is  a  fruitful  source  of  error.  Over  and 
over  again  do  we  read  in  our  best  histories  of  the  capital  of  a  Celtic 
king,  the  tofvns  of  a  Celtic  tribe.  Capital  and  town  are  wrong  terms 
to  apply  to  the  oppida  of  the  Celts.  Thei'e  is  a  sentence  of 
Polybius  (xxv.  i.),  quoting  Strabo,  iii.  cap.  4,  which  supplies  an 
opportunity  for  illustrating  the  incongruous  absurdity  of  this  error. 
"  Tiberius  Gracchus  is  said  to  have  destroyed  three  hundred  cities 
of  the  Celtiberes.''  This  Poseidonius  ridicules,  stating  "that  to 
flatter  Gracchus,  Polybius  described  as  cities  towers,  irvpyov?,  like 
those  exhibited  in  triumphal  processions."  This  is  the  critic's 
exaggeration,  but  it  is  pertinent. 

-   Archa'ologia,  vol.  Ixiii.  pp.  308-319- 


CEI/nC   ORIGINS 


33 


ings  of  the  conquerors — a  practice  pretty  generally 
found  among  the  pile-dwelling  communities.^  The 
point  is  obscure,  and  if  it  is  ever  cleared  up  it  will  be 
accomplished  by  the  skilled  observations  of  such 
workers  in  this  field  as  Dr  Norman  and  Mr  Reader. 
If  their  view  turns  out  to  be  the  correct  one,  it 
clears  away  some  of  the  Celtic  evidence  of  I^ondon, 
but  it  does  not  destroy  it  altogether. 


FICl.      PLAN. 


Plan  of  site  of  pile  dwellings  found  near  London  Wall. 

But,  after  all,  these  are  but  the  fragments  of  a 
forgotten  past  which  witnessed  London's  first  effort 
towards  a  future.     They  do  not,  of  themselves,  help 

^  Dr  Plummer  has  collected  a  useful  list  of  authorities  on  this 
as  a  Celtic  practice  in  a  note  to  his  Vilx  Sanclorum  Hibernice, 
vol.  i.  p.  cviii.  Cf.  Munro,  Lake  Dwellings  of  Europe,  where  almost 
entirely  the  human  remains  consist  of  skulls,  sometimes  fashioned 
into  cups  for  drinking.  Virgil  describes  the  hanging  of  the  sevxu'ed 
head  on  the  car  of  the  victor,  ^Eneid,  xii.  .j  11 .  The  ghastly  story 
told  by  Giraldus  CambrensiSj  Conquest  of  Ireland  (cap.  iv.),  of  the 
Irish  cutting  off  the  heads  of  their  fallen  enemies  with  their  broad 
axes  and  collecting  two  hundred  heads  to  lay  at  the  feet  of 
Dermitius  is  referable  to  the  same  practice. 

3 


34 


LONDON 


us  much  towards  understanding  how  that  future  was 
affected  by  Celtic  beginnings.  They  are  the  dead 
and  useless  elements  trodden  under  our  feet,  the 
destructible  elements  which  disappeared  with  the 
culture  to  which  they  belonged.  For  elements  not 
destructible  we   must   turn   to   another   source,  and 


Flo. 2i.  SECTION  at  A. 

S  U  R  r  A  c  c 


FIG.  3.  SECTION  at    B. 


.;-:c-:vl'.':  :-?••;■• 


G  . 


Section  of  site  of  pile  dwellings  found  near  London  Wall. 
G,  Grave!.     P,  Peat.     S,  Superficial  earth. 

this  is  the  cult  of  the  worshipped  god.  The  worship 
of  the  gods  never  seems  to  become  quite  trodden 
down.  It  lives  on  and  on,  not  in  the  end  connected 
with  the  peoples,  the  tribes,  the  groups  who  first 
invoked  them,  perhaps  even  living  only  as  a  peasant's 
superstition.  But  it  lives.  Lud  was  god  of  the 
waters,  and  he  belonged  to  the  Celtic  religion  as  it 
was  established  in  Gaul   and   Spain.     In  Britain  he 


CELTIC    ORIGINS  35 

was  god  of  the  Severn,  for  on  its  banks  at  Lydney 
his  temple,  dedicated  by  the  Romans,  has  been 
unearthed.  On  the  banks  of  the  Thames  there  is 
the  last  remnant  of  the  god — the  god-name,  Lud. 
Severn  and  Thames,  the  two  great  rivers  of  Celtic 
Britain,  each  protected  by  the  river  god,  is  what 
the  evidence  conveys  to  us ;  and  just  as  a  small 
plaque  of  bronze  represents  the  god  himself,  as  the 
Romans  sculptured  him  at  I^ydney,  so  at  London 
there  is,  I  think,  a  Roman  representation  of  the  god 
himself  in  the  magnificent  head  of  a  river  god  in 
white  marble  discovered  in  the  Walbrook/  That 
these  sculptures  are  of  Roman  workmanship,  not 
Celtic,  leads  up  to  further  important  conclusions — 
that  both  on  the  Severn  and  the  Thames  the  Romans 
paid  respect  to  the  gods  of  the  people  whom  they 
conquered,  just  as  they  did  elsewhere,  and  which  it  is 
well  known  was  part  of  their  religious  polity  all  the 
world  over. 

A  river  cult  of  this  kind  was  a  great  cult,  not  an 
isolated  worship.  Gods  who  protected  as  Lud  pro- 
tected were  worshipped,  not  in  one  tribe,  but  in  all 
tribes  whose  location  demanded  his  help. 

These  diverse  features  in  the  cult  of  Lud  can  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  position  of  Celtic  London. 
Both  Roman  and  Celt  are  interested  in  the  worship 
of  Ijud,  and  we  can  only  get  at  the  worship  of  the 
Celtic  god  in  London  through  the  medium  of  Roman 
worship  there,  just  as  we  can  only  reach  the  Celtic 

^  Archceologia,  vol.  Ix.  p.  45. 


36 


LONDON 


hut  circles  and  graves  through  the  stratum  of  Roman 
remains. 

The  cardinal  facts  upon  which  we  begin  are  the 
survival  of  the  god-name  in  London  and  the  exist- 
ence of  the  head  of  the  Walbrook  river  god.  These 
two  facts  are  complementary  parts  of  one  original, 


namely,  the  Celtic  worship  of  Lud,  and  it  will  be 
necessary,  owing  to  the  absence  of  further  direct 
evidence  in  London,  to  examine  some  points  in  the 
cult  of  Lud  elsewhere  in  Celtic  lands,  in  order  to 
ascertain  the  value  of  these  London  fragments. 

The  name  of  the  god  is  the  root  of  some  names  of 
cities  in  Celtdom,  situated,  as  London  was  situated, 
at  the  head  of  a  river  or  at  the  juncture  of  two  rivers. 


CELTIC    ORIGINS  37 

Liigdiinum,  the  modem  T^yons,  was  the  chief  of  such 
cities — the  town  of  Lug  at  the  conHuence  of  the 
Rhone  and  the  Saone ;  and  there  were  Lugdunum 
Convenarum,  now  called  Saint  Bertrand  de  Com- 
minges,  in  the  department  of  the  Haute  Garonne ; 
Laon,  the  chief  town  of  the  department  of  the 
Aisne ;  Lugodunum,  now  Leyden  on  the  Rhine ; 
and  Lugduna  on  the  Rhone. ^ 

Now,  M.  d'Arbois  de  Jubainville  has  suggested  that 
the  festival  held  at  the  last- mentioned  place  every 
first  of  August  in  honour  of  the  deified  Augustus, 
simply  superseded,  in  name  mostly,  an  older  festival 
held  on  that  day  in  honour  of  Lug,"  and  it  is  note- 
worthy that  Lugdunum  very  early  (b.c.  12)  possessed 
an  altar  to  Augustus,  with  a  Celtic  priest.^  This 
suggestion  helps  the  London  question  at  its  weakest 
point,  inasmuch  as  we  can  turn  to  the  worship  of  the 
Emperor  in  London.  Mommsen,  in  his  belittling 
account  of  the  province  of  Britain,  says  that  "  we  do 
not  precisely  know  what  English  town  served  as  a  seat 
for  the  common  worship  of  the  Emperor."*  There 
was  certainly  an  important  temple  to  the  Emperor 
Claudius  at  Camulodunum  which  "  was  regarded  as 
a  stronghold  of  ascendancy  for  all  time,"^  and  that 
this  ascendancy  resulted  from  the  existence  of  this 

^  Rhys,  Celtic  Heathendom,  p.  420 ;  Holder,  Alt-Cellischer  Sprach- 
schatz,  vol.  ii.  s.v.  Liigudunon. 

-  Quoted  by  Khys,  op.  cit.,  p.  421. 

2  Ramsay,  Tacitus'  Annals,  vol.  i.  p.  70,  note  2. 

^  Mommsen,  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire,  vol.  i.  p.  1,03. 

^  Tacitus,  Annai,  lib.  xiv.  cap.  31. 


38  LONDON 

temple  is  surely  implied  by  the  historian's  words. 
Roach  Smith  has  pointed  out  that  the  inscription 
found  in  Nicholas  Lane,  London,  which  Hiibner 
extends  to  "  Numini  C^saris  et  Genio  provincijE 
Britannice,"  ^  has  probably,  judging  from  the  size  of 
the  letters,  surmounted  the  entrance  to  a  temple,  and 
that  London  was  thus  a  seat  for  the  worship  of  the 
Emperor.  The  bronze  head  of  Hadrian,  found  in 
the  Thames  at  London  Bridge,  seems  to  confirm  this 
view.^  We  have  in  tliese  facts  the  necessary  basis 
for  the  argument  that  as  the  worship  of  Lud  or 
Lug  at  Lugduna  is  associated  with  the  worship 
of  the  Emperor,  so  in  London  there  are  the  same 
associated  cults. 

The  next  stage  in  the  evidence  for  the  cult  of  Lud 
in  London  comes  from  the  analogy  between  London 
conditions  and  those  at  Lydney,  where  pavements 
and  other  objects  of  Roman  workmanship  have  been 
discovered  which  exhibit  designs  illustrative  of  the 
worship  accorded  to  this  god.  Sir  John  Rhys  is  the 
best  guide  here.  He  describes  the  principal  features 
as  follows : 

"  The  mosaic  floor  displayed  not  only  an  inscription, 
but  also  representations  of  sea  serpents,  or  the  K^Wea 
accompanying  Glaucus  in  Greek  mythology,  and  fishes 
supposed  to  stand  for  the  salmon  of  the  Severn ; 
moreover,  an  ugly  band  of  red  within  the  lines  of 
the   inscription  surrounded   the   mouth   of  a  funnel 

1  C.I.L.,  No.  2i2. 

-  Ilhistralions  oj  Roman  London,  pj).  30-31. 


CELTIC    ORIGINS 


39 


leading  into  the  ground  beneath  ;  this  hole  is  sup- 
posed to  liave  been  used  for  libations  to  the  god. 
Further,  a  small  plaque  of  bronze  found  on  the  spot 
gives  us  probably  a  representation  of  the  god  him- 
self. The  principal  figure  thereon  is  a  youthful  deity 
crowned  with  rays  like  Phoebus ;  he  stands  in  a 
chariot  drawn  by  four  horses  like  the  Roman  Neptune. 


Deus  Nodens  or  river  god,  from  Lydney  Park. 

On  either  side  the  winds  are  typified  by  a  winged 
genius  floating  along,  and  the  rest  of  the  space  is 
left  to  two  Tritons,  while  a  detached  piece,  probably 
of  the  same  bronze,  represents  another  Triton,  also 
a  fisherman,  who  has  just  succeeded  in  hooking  a 
salmon."^  An  interesting  parallel  to  this  representa- 
tion of  fishing  in  the  religious  cult  is  also  found  in 

^    Rhys^  Celtic  Heathendom,  pp.  126-7. 


40 


LONDON 


CELTIC   ORIGINS  41 

the  religious  cult  of  T^oudon.  It  will  be  described 
later  on  among  the  Roman  antiquities,  but  its 
essential  position  as  evidence  is  here.  It  forms  a 
connecting  link  between  the  w^orship  of  Lud  in 
Lydney  and  that  in  London.  Further  parallel 
evidence  is  derived  from  the  fact  that  some  interest- 
ing points  are  preserved  by  the  Lydney  temple 
essential  to  its  position  as  a  Celtic  site.  The  temple 
at  I^ydney  was  in  the  Roman  station  now  situated 
about  a  mile  and  a  half  from  the  Severn,  though  the 
river  flowed  nearer  to  Lydney  in  former  times.  This 
is  shown  by  a  large  tract  of  alluvial  ground,  which  is 
known  to  have  been  formed  by  deposit  from  the 
river  within  the  last  one  hundred  and  fifty  years, 
and  tradition  reports  that  the  water  once  came  up 
within  a  short  distance  of  the  churchyard  at  Lydney. 
This  made  the  position  which  the  Romans  occupied 
a  very  commanding  one,^  and  it  is  precisely  parallel 
to  the  sites  elsewhere  chosen  for  the  worship  of 
this  deity  as  the  river  god  of  the  Celts.  It  was 
a  pre- Roman  site,  and  that  the  worship  was  also 
pre- Roman  is  clearly  established  from  the  remains," 
in  addition  to  the  inscription  by  Silvianus,  which  is 
not  only  Celtic  in  form  but  is  tribal  Celtic,^  and  the 

^  Bathui'st,  Rovian  Remains  in  Lydney  Park,  p.  1.  The  map  wliicli 
is  given  in  this  vohime  illustrates  these  points  admirably. 

2  Ihid.,  pp.  22,  26,  30. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  45,  pi.  XX.  Devo  Nodenti  Silvianus  (sic)  anilum  perdedit, 
demediam  partem  donavit  Nodenti  inter  quibus  nomen  Seniciani 
nollis  petmittas  sanitatem  donee  perferat  usque  templum  Nodentis. 
C.I.L.,  No.  140. 


42  LONDON 

ex  voto  offerings,  which  are  Celtic  and  inciade  the 
sacred  cock/ 

The  argument  is :  the  same  god-name  on  the 
Thames  as  on  the  Severn,  therefore  the  same  god  ; 
the  same  god,  therefore  the  same  worship.  Sir  John 
Rhys  puts  it  in  this  way :  "  The  probabihty  is  that 
as  a  temple  on  a  hill  near  the  Severn  associated  him 
[Lud]  with  that  river  in  the  west,  so  a  still  more 
ambitious  temple  on  a  hill  connected  him  with  the 
Thames  in  tlie  east ;  and  as  an  aggressive  creed  can 
hardly  signalise  its  conquests  more  effectually  than 
by  appropriating  the  fanes  of  the  retreating  faith,  no 
site  could  be  guessed  with  more  probability  to  have 
been  sacred  to  the  Celtic  Zeus  than  the  eminence 
on  which  the  dome  of  St  Paul's  now  rears  its  mag- 
nificent form."- 

This  argument  seems  to  me  quite  conclusive.  It 
not  only  meets  the  close  parallels  which  have  been 
noted  in  the  various  phases  of  Lud-worship,  but  it 
is  the  only  way  to  account  for  the  associated  facts 
— facts  which  need  accounting  for  if  we  would  get 
at  London  origins. 

There  is  something  more  in  the  worship  of  Lud 
in  London  which  it  helps  to  account  for,  and  which 

^   Batliurst,  Roman  Remains  in  l.ydney  Park,  p.  49. 

-  Rhys,  (A'ltic  Heathendom,  j).  1 29.  Mr  Cook  lias  followed  this 
up  by  a  special  inquiry  into  the  Celtic  form  of  the  European  sky 
god ;  and  he  points  out  where  Lud  ecjuates  with  Zeus,  and  thus 
becomes  entitled  to  take  his  place  amon^  Celtic  gods  who  had 
a  definite  place  in  the  religious  cults  of  Britain  [Follclore,  vol.  xvii. 
pp.  35-50). 


CELTIC    OKKilXS  4:3 

presently  we  shall  be  attempting  to  explain  inade- 
quately, if  we  do  not  accept  Sir  John  Rhys's  urcru- 
ment.  Somewhere  in  the  future  of  London  history 
— the  future,  that  is,  which  comes  from  Celtic  London 
— there  will  appear  the  lasting  effect  of  the  cult  of 
Lud  as  he  was  worshipped  at  Celtic  London,  as  he 
was  continued  among  the  gods  of  Roman  London, 
namely,  the  expression  of  a  Celtic  religious  feeling 
towards  London  in  post-Roman  times.  This  expres- 
sion was  not  a  creation,  but  a  survival.  It  is  the 
something  more  which  comes  to  us  from  Celtic 
London — the  only  something  which  was  sent  forward 
from  Celtic  to  Roman  London,  though  it  proved  a 
most  powerful  and  necessary  factor  in  the  chain  of 
continuity.  Its  influence,  however,  did  not  appear 
until  post-Roman  times,  and  we  must  leave  the 
evidence  of  Celtic  London  at  this  stage  in  all  its 
meagreness  and  incompleteness  to  resume  it  later 
on  when  we  shall  see  it  in  a  new  and  more  power- 
ful light. 


CHAPTER   III 


ROMAN    ORIGINS 


The  beginnings  of  London  as  a  city  are  to  be  found 
in  Roman,  not  Celtic,  London,  and  though  the 
remains  of  Roman  London  lie 
some  fifteen  feet  below  the 
modern  surface  of  London — the 
material  remains,  that  is  to  say 
— the  fifteen  feet  of  accumulated 
debris,  representing  the  events  of 
fifteen  hundred  years,  has  not  ob- 
literated the  foundation  stratum. 
We  are  not  now  concerned  with 
the  quantum  of  these  remains, 
nor  with  the  quality.  Our  en- 
deavour will  be  to  pick  our  way 
amongst  them  in  order  to  do  two  things — to  demon- 
strate that  Roman  London  was  a  place  of  Roman 
power  and  authority  ;  to  gather  up,  if  we  may,  some 
recognisable  ideal  which  this  Roman  London  may 
have  possessed,  and  which  it  may  have  passed  on 
to  later  ages. 

London  is  the  one  place  in  our  island  which  has 
yielded  Roman  objects  of  artistic  merit  and  abund- 

44 


Roman  lamp  found  at  Three 
Kings  Court,  Lombard 
Street,  in  Guildhall  Mu- 
seum. 


ROMAN    ORIGINS  45 

ance.^  In  spite  of  the  ignorance,  the  indifference, 
the  unpardonable  neglect  of  centuries,  this  verdict  of 
no  less  an  authority  than  Dr  Haverfield  comes  like  a 
freshening  breeze  to  one's  perception  of  the  fitness  of 
things.  There  was  a  Roman  London,  then,  of  great- 
ness. Art  does  not  find  its  abode  in  mean  cities,  nor 
in  cities  whence  greatness  of  some  sort  does  not  issue, 
and  what  we  have  to  inquire  into  is  what  sort  of 
greatness  was  it  w^hich  belonged  to  Roman  London, 
and  which  Roman  London  sent  forth  as  its  con- 
tribution to  world-history. 

We  must  first  obtain  a  general  idea  of  the  con- 
structive and  geographical  aspect  of  Roman  London. 
A  complete  system  of  defensive  protection  by  walls 
and  gates  secured  the  internal  glories  of  Roman 
London  from  attack.  Excavators  for  building  and 
other  purposes  have  not  come  to  the  end  of  discoveries 
of  lengths  of  the  Roman  wall,  and  few  things  are  more 
interesting  than  to  know  that  to  this  day  the  site  of 
the  wall  still  determines  the  route  of  London  streets, 
and  still  commands  an  additional  and  special  price  in 
city  contracts  where  excavations  have  to  take  place. 
The  question  as  to  when  the  walls  were  built,  when 
London,  therefore,  assumed  its  position  of  largest 
Roman  city  in  Britain,  is  much  disputed.  The  most 
important  evidence  consistently  points  to  an  early 
construction,  late  in  the  first  century  or  early  in  the 
second,  and  the  famous  passage  in  Tacitus,  read 
insufficiently    by    most    scholars,    of    the    massacre 

1  Dr  Haverfield  in  Archa'ologia,\oL  Ix.  p.  43. 


46 


LONDON 


by  Boudiccii,  following  the  tactical  surrender  of 
London  by  the  Roman  general  Suetonius,  supplies 
the  keynote.  This  passage  contains  two  important 
statements  for  consideration.  First,  there  is  the 
Londoner's  love  for  the  place  ;  secondly,  there  is  the 
hesitation  of  Suetonius  as  to  his  defence  of  it.     Both 

these  statements  must 
be  considered  in  the 
light  of  the  acknow- 
ledged meagreness  of 
Tacitus'  military  infor- 
mation. They  indicate 
a  definitely  organised 
community,  not  a 
mere  collection  of  mer- 
chants' booths,  unde- 
fended even  from  the 
natives  who  had  not 
yet  been  entirely  con- 
quered. Such  careless 
ways  were  not  usual 
with  Roman  merchants 
nor  with  the  Roman  state.  The  strategical  value 
of  London  must  have  transferred  her  from  a  Celtic 
stronghold  to  a  Roman  defensive  post.  Her  commer- 
cial value  revealed  itself  so  quickly  upon  this  transfer 
that  she  developed  as  modern  cities  develop  in  newly 
colonised  countries  before  our  eyes.  The  Roman 
general  had  to  face  the  problem  of  a  Roman  camp  on 
the  Thames  front,  surrounded  by  mercantile  buildings 


Roman  tower  in  the  Wall  near  Bishopsgate. 


'   ^i^    I.O  >-  D   O  X 

.l/ir  Ititr-  //Ir  4'lt  Jil't'i/aU  .'^///.  ,  l/tiy  I .  iJI/1  /■ri-lt///ll  /r' /it////  //llj  til/ii.///,^tini-  ,y  .'fii/1,/411/1^ 
uti.i  it//  /fitii  int-/t:tt,'  II 1//1  I'i'iiM-.t./iilit  if  l.nxDox  M'l/j.  11  /iti/i  /tiij  lyi/i/iii':'  /1  liittil  J  ii'.'i/ii  It 
iin,>  yfrri  i/itf/i .  .<//  iififi.tiU  li-  /itiif  /•rrii  mif  ••/' iAf  '/.i,tiliiiti/i.ioi'Hii'i,-/i  .■/'•;,t:.i.  if  ir/iif/i 
/Ar,r  it't-ir  arirttt/  at  ii/irtti/ti/    i/i,*la*ti-r<j .  S/ir  1/  i/i/iin/j  ti-rij  iiiti'Ai-    f//ii /^  11'     I'li    //if 

/ItJUh    jitif,  i^lJir'hii// .     f,if/if/nif/tiii/tiy,;iirj,if//it    UnZ/.trr    Irnnnii/j   Imxdox  . 

%-  A.V  .ICy  .■>• /,><f    la  X  Smilli    ly  MtMt  J}i,i/./,n^,    .r"  .IfMrhit,    /.^nf 


A  PORTION  OF  OLD  LONDON  WALL  ON  LUDGATE  HILL. 
Brought  to  light  by  a  6re  in    1 792. 


ROMAN    OHIGINS  47 

on  the  land  side.  This  is  the  interpretation  to  be  put 
upon  the  meagre  sentences  of  the  great  Roman  his- 
torian in  order  fully  to  account  for  the  facts-  the  love 
of  the  citizens  for  the  place  which  was  being  left  to  the 
enemy,  the  hesitation  of  the  general  as  to  making  his 
defence  at  London.     There  could  have  been  no  love 


A  portion  of  Braun  ;ind  Hogenberg's  map  of  London,  showing  the 
Roman  tower  in  the  Wall. 

for  the  place — loci  dulcedo — unless  it  had  developed 
into  a  home  for  soldier  and  merchant ;  there  would 
have  been  no  hesitancy  but  for  the  fact  that  London's 
defences  w^ere  in  some  sort  of  form  for  defence. 
This  double  point  of  view  enables  us  to  consider  the 
first  Roman  London  as  a  camp  which  had  grown 
into  the  nucleus  of  a  city,  with  attractions  and 
beauties  of  its  own,  and  to  consider  the  expansion  to 


48  LONDON 

the  greater  Roman  London,  which  took  phice  rapidly 
and  effectively,  as  the  cause  both  of  its  military 
unfitness  for  defence  in  a.d.  61  and  of  its  mercantile 
fitness  for  enlargement.  There  were  thus  two 
Roman  Londons — the  defended  nucleus  arising  out 
of  the  original  camp,  and  the  extended  city  identified 
by  its  walls.^  The  first  site  is  even  to  this  day 
represented  on  the  map  of  the  city  by  a  rectangular 
block  intersected  by  straight  streets,  north  and  south 
and  east  and  west,  enclosing  an  area  about  that  of  a 
legionary  camp,  and  containing  London  Stone,  with 
its  interesting  traditions.  JNIore  than  this,  there  was 
a  definite  constitutional  boundary  of  this  area,  for 
the  discovery  in  the  bed  of  the  Walbrook  of  a 
boundary  mark  used  by  the  Roman  surveyors^  can 
only  point  to  such  a  conclusion.  It  is  not  possible 
to  determine  precisely  Avhich  of  the  boundaries  of 
the  inner  city  suggested  at  various  times  by  different 
authorities  is  the  correct  one,  but  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  within  the  true  boundary  was  the  Roman 
London  which  was  loved  by  its  citizens  in  a.d.  61. 
It  passed  away  into  the  larger  Roman  London,  but 
even  so,  the  evidence  of  its  former  existence  is 
consistent  with  Roman  ideals,  for,  as  Mr  Reid 
reminds  us,  "  in  the  imperial  age  cities  were  fond  of 
reviving  ancient  memories."^     It  was  retained  in  the 

^  I  have  worked  this  point  out  in  my  (ruvernaiicc  of  London,  pp. 
75-87. 

2  Vict.  Hist,  of  London,  pj).  42,  82. 

3  J.  S.    Reid,  MunicipalUies  of  the  Roman   Empire,  \>.  37'5,  and  see 
p.  235  for  an  example  of  the  dual  origin  of  a  city. 


L  <»  N     !)    O  .V  W    A   I.    \.. 

///   ///'     f7i/inJ/   }hf,'  tf'.V  /^/,v  ^     f'n/jf>f,f^//r 
f'^Af..  />,//^    ,/      /.    i>     '     />  fj-  \       li'  .1  /,  t,      J,,/H    '/.-    tfO    tt/i/ 
■  "•//     //!/■'/•••/( //*// A rr.>rf/fi/  A    t.,  //„     /A/l//  /////i*y /'«/<■/ , 

/.n.tout    rri/:/  ut/j/n^j    //////  .//if//  ////  ///,/:     V///,    '////iit/rt-  /itu-  .ir./    /wlt/t  //y  i//r-^MH'j/*' 

I'li////     V/,/l,'i,/-,il'//  .Vn,/rr   /////,       ,IM<////    /////n-  ."/I'/Nt/ I'/  //l/-    ///■Jt  .^/l^fl^  tf     //'///>  J  . f/l///- 

ij  ■,•  ,i/i.- /i,//ijiy  .//,,'  riji'//i/r    .'^m  j///-  .Ai,  iiJ/n////   ,^  /^// //i/'  /A/  /r/ji//t  /'J47J  /  ff/i/^^ 
J  ■.///,>  /i„i'/.j/»/i.n','//./,t  ,■/  /A/-  tr-////  tt/'-/if  ////   /v'/y  ■//• /■/   r//////i///  /r/ttv<M    /////y/j/< 
y/fj/-.  .  /Mil,/.//,      /*/,/•  /'tyi/t/.y/'^/         Ak  .Uyj^*  .».,  ^  ,  * /?«,,wi.  Z«*.. 

.'!.u„l..<   M,.,  :■■  ry,-  f,.  X  .^„i    J->.i/;'H.n,   A./^,/./.   i'Af.„/,„j   /^,. 

PART  OF  LONDON  WALL  in  the  Churchyard  of  St.  Giles,  Cripplegale. 
Fi'om  an  engraving  published  in   1792. 


ROMAN    ORIGINS  49 

earliest  ages  perhaps  by  a  religious  significance,  for 
the  Romans  worshipped  in  this  fashion,  but  that  it 
should  be  retained  at  all  is  remarkable  testimony  to 
the  persistence  of  historical  evidences. 

We  have  more  concern  with  the  greater  Roman 
London.  The  difference  between  the  first  London 
and  this  second  London  is  expressed  by  the  change 
of  name.  When  Tacitus  first  brings  London  into 
history  it   is   a   mere  "locus."     During   its    Roman 


Roman  balance,  bronze,  found  in  London  Wall,  in  the  Guildhall  Museum. 

history  it  drops  the  Celtic  name  of  London  and  is 
endowed  with  the  great  name  of  Augusta.  The 
significance  of  such  facts  scarcely  needs  elaboration. 
Augusta  was  one  of  the  recognised  great  cities  of 
the  Roman  Empire.  It  was  possessed  of  two  very 
important  features — the  bridge  which,  spanning  the 
Thames,  gave  it  easy  access  to  the  south,  instead  of 
an  almost  impossible  access,  and  the  roads  which 
connected  it  with  the  entire  continental  system  of 
roadways.     One   must   always    bear   in    mind    these 


50  LONDON 

roadways.  They  were  not  British  roads.  They 
were  not  even  Roman  roads  in  Britain.  They  were 
the  roads  of  the  Roman  Empire,  constructed  for  all 
the  purposes  of  the  Empire — military,  commercial, 
social.  They  all  started,  not  in  Britain,  but  at  Rome. 
They  entered  and  traversed  Gaul,  reaching  the  coast 
at  Gesoriacum  (Boulogne).  They  began  again  in 
Britain  at  Dovernum  (Dover),  and  the  connection 
between  the  roads  in  Britain  and  those  on  the  Conti- 
nent is  clearly  stated  in  the  Antonine 
itinerary.  London  by  their  means  was 
fully  and  completely  brought  within  the 
Empire,  sharing  with  all  the  other  cities 
the  glories,  the  peace,  and,  in  the  end, 
the  misfortunes  of  the  Empire. 

We  shall  presently  see  how  this  works 
out,  but  in  the  meantime  we  go  on  to 
note  that  a  Roman  city  was  not  wholly 

Roman  key,  iron, 

in    Guildhall    contaiucd    witliin    its    defending    walls. 

Museum.  .    .  n   r       ^  1  •     • 

Ihe  cities  of  Italy  were  each  a  miniature 
Rome,  and  we  want  to  know  whether  cities  beyond 
Italy,  the  cities  in  Britain,  were  also  planned  in  this 
way.  The  historian  Gildas  implies  that  they  were 
(cap.  v.).  Gibbon  describes  the  facts  which  lead  him 
to  the  same  conclusion,^  and  all  history  seems  to  point 
in  this  direction.  Mr  Reid  in  his  recent  volume  of 
lectures  ^    gives   complete   evidence   on   the  general 

1  Gibbon,  Decline  ami  Fall  of  Roman  Empire  (edit.  Bury),  vol.  iii. 
pp.  353-355. 

^  J.  S.  Reid,  Municipalities  of  the  Roman  Empire,  p.   14  (adorning 


ROMAN   ORIGINS 


51 


aspect  of  this  subject.  The  remains  of  the  Roman  cities 
also  give  the  same  evidence,  for  even  after  destruction 
we  can  always  find  our  way  to  the  forum  (in  London 
generally  accepted  as  on  the  site  now  occupied 
by  Leadenhall),  the  temple,  and  the 
amphitheatre  ;  and  Silchester,  Caerleon, 
Wroxeter,  Cirencester,  and  other  sites 
bear  testimony  to  this  universality  of 
type.  Although  I  am  afraid  I  must 
surrender  to  Dr  Norman  my  suggestion 
that  the  Bear  Garden  in  Southwark 
was  the  site  of  the  I^ondon  amphi- 
theatre,^ I  at  the  same  time  point  out 
that  the  trident  found  there  is  not 
the  only  indication  in  London  of  the 
Roman  sport.  A  second  trident  has 
been  found  in  Southwark,  namely,  in 
Stoney  Street,^  itself  a  remarkable  sur- 
vival from  Roman  London ;  while  the 
inscription  to  a  Retiarius  in  Greek, 
found  at  Islington,^  but  probably  com- 
ing from  another  find-spot  in  London, 
belongs  to  the  same  group. 

The  importance  of  this   class  of  objects   is   con- 
firmed by  the  constitutional  evidence  that  the  auth- 

the  city  to  imitate  the  grandeur  of  Rome)  ;  p.  20  (town  planning)  ; 
p.  127  (copying  the  institutions  of  Rome).  See  also  Mr  Hardy's 
Roman  Laivs  and  Charters,  pp.  (ii.)  13,  64,  1 14. 

^  See  Governance  of  London,  p.  Q5. 

2  Catalogue  of  Guildhall  Miixemn,  p.  58. 

^  Arch.,  vol.  xi.  p.  48. 


Roman  pincers, 
iron,  in  Guild- 
hall Museum. 


52 


LONDON 


NIAMAPTIA 
AWTQ  ANAPI 


Retiarius  found  at  Islington. 


ROMAN    ORIGINS  53 

orities  of  the  cities  and  the  forces  of  government  must 
also  have  corresponded  to  the  Roman  form.  The 
settlement  of  the  colonia  was  on  the  same  principle 
in  Britain  as  elsewhere/  The  one  reference  to  Britain 
in  the  Theodosian  code  gives  fortunate  evidence 
that  the  decurions  of  the  cities  existed  as  in  other 
parts  of  the  Empire  (lib.  ii.,  tit.  vii.  2),  and  inscrip- 
tions confirm  this.'  Another  inscription  refers  to  the 
publicani  of  the  province,^  indicating  that  I^ondon  was 
a  centre  of  financial  administration.  And  finally,  the 
Emperor  Honorius  addressed  his  famous  letter,  sever- 
ing Britain  from  the  Roman  Empire,  to  the  cities  of 
Britain,  and  this  could  not  have  been  done  unless  these 
cities  had  been  Roman  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term. 
As  in  other  parts  of  the  Empire,  the  cities,  not  the 
provinces,  were  the  government  centres,  and  it  was  to 
these  city-states  that  the  Emperor  turned  when  he 
left  Britain  to  her  fate.  On  these  grounds  we  are 
justified  in  depicting  the  Roman  cities  of  Britain  as 
miniatures  of  the  mother  city  on  the  Tiber,  and  in 
depicting  London  as  the  best  of  such  miniatures. 

If  this  is  so,  I^ondon  had  its  pomerium,  the  open 
sacred  belt  of  land  all  round  the  city,  and  its  territorium, 
the  extensive  tract  which  was  its  food-ground,  its 
villa  space,  its  playground,  and  its  sporting-ground.* 

^  Tacitus,  Annals,  xii.  81. 

2  See  C.I.L.,  Nos.  34  and  189,  referring  to  Gloucester  and 
Lincoln. 

^  C.I.L.,  No.  1235,  and  see  Dr  Haverfield  in  Journ.  Roman  Studies, 
vol.  i.  p.  151. 

^  See  maps  in  my  Govemiance  of  London,  pji.  88,  9^^ 


54  LONDON 

There  are  no  material  proofs  of  these  dating  from 
Roman  times,  though  INIr  Montagu  Sharpe  has  gone 
far  to  prove  that  the  Roman  plotting  of  the  fields  in 
Middlesex  can  still  be  traced. 

Complete  proofs  of  these  and  other  constitutional 
matters,  however,  come  to  us  from  w^hat  was  left  over 
after  the  break-up  of  Roman  times — remnants  so  great 
and  significant  as  to  form  definite  parts  of  city  organisa- 
tion in  these  later  times,  and  yet  not  to  be  accounted 
for  or  explained  by  the  facts  presented  by  these  later 
times,  nor  indeed  in  anything  in  the  history  in  which 

they  become  em- 
bedded. History 
cannot  deal  with 
institutions  situ- 
caiiir  ~-T  I  II  I  I      ir-rrmFi^    ated  in  this  way, 

Roman  scale  beam,  bronze,  found  at  Austin  lOr  mstltutlOUS   do 

Friars,  in  the  Guildhall  Museum.  ,  .     , 

not  come  mto  ex- 
istence at  the  precise  date  when  their  recorded  history 
begins.  They  come  into  history  from  a  previous  un- 
recorded period  ;  and  we  shall  have  to  note  this  in 
a  somewhat  special  manner  throughout  the  entire 
range  of  our  inquiry.  That  it  is  possible  to  note  it 
so  early,  in  connection  with  Roman  J^ondon  and  not 
with  the  Celtic  stronghold  of  London,  points  to  this 
period  as  the  true  commencing  stage  of  that  con- 
tinuity in  London  history  with  which  we  are  now 
concerned. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  deal  with  these  remains 
further   at    this   stage.      They   have   been    discussed 


ROMAN    ORIGINS  55 

elsewliere,  and  are  fairly  well  known. ^  But  there 
are  other  remains  which  tell  us  of  the  Ronianisation 
of  I^ondon  in  quite  a  different  manner,  eloquent 
fragments  from  the  past,  speaking  to  us  through  the 
mist*  of  centuries  in  a  language  which  belongs  to 
our  common  humanity.  One  such  fragment  comes 
very  closely  into  touch  right  at  the  beginning,  for 
it  is  not  only  a  message  out  of  the  past,  but  a  living 
message.  It  is  a  tile  from  a  bonding  course  in  the 
city  wall,  dug  up  in  Warwick  Lane,  and  bearing  a 
rude  inscription  which  Dr  Haverfield  happily  trans- 
lates into  "  Augustalis  goes  off  on  his  own  every 
fortnight.'"-  Augustalis  was  obviously  a  criticised 
personage  in  Roman  London,  and  someone,  a  wag 
of  a  workman  no  doubt,  noted  down  what  he,  in 
common  with  his  descendant  of  to-day,  was  in  the  habit 
of  doing.  And  he  noted  it  in  the  Latin  language. 
The  language  of  Roman  I^ondon  then,  at  least  as  low 
down  as  the  skilled  artisan  class,  was  Latin.  Now  a 
Roman  city  talking  Latin  was  a  Roman  city  through 
and  through.  The  sons  of  Roman  mothers  were 
there.  Roman  aspirations,  Roman  ideals,  Roman 
thought  were  there,  with  the  language  which  came 
to  them  from  the  great  mother  city  on  the  Tiber. 
London  intended  to  be  true  daughter  city  to  the 
great  mother,  a  city  of  the  Empire,  with  the  Empire's 
methods  of  doing  what  was  before  her  to  do. 

The  costume  was  Roman,  for  sandals,  almost  as 

1  See  Governance  of  London,  ])j).  96-107. 
-  Jouni.  lionnin  Studies;  vol.  i.  p.  lt)8. 


56 


LONDON 


perfect  as  when  in  use,  and  presenting  some  of  the 
best  forms  and  patterns,^  have  been  found  among  the 
buried  remains,  as  well  as  on  the  ship  which  met  its 
fate  on  the  shore  of  the  Thames  nearly  opposite 
Horseferry."  Personal  ornaments  of  interesting  types 
are  numerous,  and  some  are  beautifully  designed, 
among  which  may  be  mentioned  a  bronze  fibula  of 
peculiar  shape,  bearing  traces  of  sil- 
vered and  enamelled  ornamentation, 
armlets  chiefly  in  bronze  and  some  in 
gold,  two  being  dug  up  in  Cheapside 
of  remarkable  beauty,  a  variety  of 
jet  objects,  hair-pins,  brooches,  and 
other  fibulae  of  many  types.  One 
of  the  most  interesting  of  the  toilette 
implements  is  a  strigil  or  bath  scraper 
found  upon  the  site  of  the  Royal 
Exchange,  used  for  scraping  the 
skin  after  gymnastic  exercise.  All 
such  objects  and  their  fellows,  not 
Roman  key,  iironze,  in   to  bc  enumerated  hcrc,  but  many  of 

Guildhall  Museum.  •  i  /-i     -i  ii      n 

them  to  be  seen  in  the  (jruildhali 
Museum,  indicate  the  nature  of  the  domestic  life  of 
Roman  London. 

More  significant  than  all  the  material  remains, 
so  significant  as  practically  to  embrace  the  whole 
essentials  of  Roman  life  in  London,  is  the  fact  that 


^   Roaeli  Smith,  Illustrations  of  Roman  London,  pp.  131,  132. 
-  Ship  of  the  Roman  Period  discovered  on  Site  of  the  County  Hall, 
p.  Ik 


ROMAN   ORIGINS 


57 


Domestic  altar  found  in 
London. 


Roman  London  worshipped  in  the  Roman  fashion. 
Roman  worship  was  dual,  that  which  belonged  to 
the  house  and  the  family,  and 
that  which  belonged  to  the  city 
and  the  citizen.  The  house  re- 
ligion, to  which  members  of  the 
Roman  household  alone  were 
admitted,  is  represented  by  a 
small  altar  in  coloured  marble, 
three  inches  square,  found  in  the 
Thames  near  old  London  Bridge.^ 

The  city  religion  is  re- 
presented by  the  altar 
of  Diana  found  under 
Goldsmiths     Hall     in 
Foster  Lane.'-     There 
are  two  other  religious 
cults  in  London,  that 
of    the    Dea?    Matres, 
represented  by  a  sculp- 
tured    fragment     dis- 
covered in  Hart  Street    Crutched  Friars,^   and  that 
of  JNIithra,  represented  by  an  altar-piece  found  in  the 
Walbrook.*     We  have  thus  in  London  the  Roman 


Fragment  of  group  of  Matrons  found 
in  Hart  Street  Crutched  Friars. 


^  Roach  Smith,  Illustrations,  p.  48,  with  woodcut  illustration. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  48,  plate  ii. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  33,  with  woodcut  illustration.  This  cult  is  discussed 
by  H.  C.  Coote  in  Folklore,  vol.  iii.  pp.  117-123,  and  in  Arclueologia, 
vol.  xlvi.  pp.  171-186. 

■*  Haverfield,  in  Journ.  Roman  Studies,  vol.  i.  p.  l63,  and  plate 
xxiv.  ;  Cumont,  Mysteries  of  Mithra,  pp.  57-60. 


58  LONDON 

family  religion,  the  Roman  city  religion,  and  two 
acquired  religions,  a  combination  the  importance  of 
which  may  be  appreciated  by  the  study  of  JNlr 
Warde  Fowler's  work  on  Roman  religion.  Perhaps 
the  evidence  of  the  family  religion  is  in  this  case 
the  more  important,  for  in  this  cult,  revealed  by  the 


Mithraic  relief  found  in  London. 


indestructible  evidence  of  the  sculptured  stone,  we 
have  proof  that  the  Romans  who  settled  in  T^ondon 
brought  witli  them  the  religion  upon  which  their 
lives  were  founded,  and  not  merely  an  official  and 
perfunctory  religious  ritual  half  believed  in  by  many 
and  not  })elieved  in  at  all  by  the  rest  of  its  votaries. 
The  worship  of  the  De.u  Matres  and  of  JNIithra  was 


ROMAN   ORIGINS 


59 


founded  on  a  different  principle,  and  the  fact  that 
London  became  possessed  of  these  advanced  cults 
illustrates  how  closely  she  was  in  touch  with  the 
progressive  forces  of  the  Empire. 

We  may  now  ask  what  was  the  predominant 
worship  in  Roman  London.  Undoubtedly  it  was 
that  of  Diana,  for  the  cult 
evidence  of  this  goddess  in- 
cludes not  only  the  altar, 
but  other  finds  connected 
with  the  worship.  These 
additional  elements  do  not 
occur  in  connection  with 
any  of  the  other  Roman 
deities  worshipped  in  I^on- 
don,  and  I  think  this  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  Diana- 
worship  practically  absorbed 
the  religious  expression  of 
London.  It  will  be  neces- 
sary to  examine  the  details 
of  these  additional  finds  with 
some  care. 

The  altar  was  recovered,  as  we  have  seen,  from  the 
foundations  of  Goldsmiths  Hall.  It  was  connected 
with  strongly  cemented  masses  of  stonework.  It  is 
figured  in  ^IrclKcoloi^'ia  (vol.  xxiv.),  and  bears  in  bas- 
relief  the  figure  of  Diana  with  bow  and  quiver  and  a 
hound  at  her  feet ;  on  the  sides  of  the  altar  is  sculp- 
tured a  tree,  and  upon  the  back  is  rudely  sculptured  a 


Altar  to  Diana. 


GO 


LOND(3N 


tripod  and  sacrificial  implements.  There  is  evidence 
of  an  inscription  on  the  back  of  the  altar,  and  it  has 
even  been  asserted  that  the  letter  V  for  "  Venatrix  " 
was  discoverable,  but  this  is  far  from  certain.  Now 
these   details  are  important.     The  altar  was  clearly 

used  for  sacrifice  or  sacrifice 
would  not  be  indicated.  And 
the  sculpturing  of  the  tree 
indicates  a  rite  belonging  to 
the  cult  of  Diana.  Further, 
there  is  this  important  fact, 
the  figure  of  Diana  on  the 
altar  has  the  same  general 
characteristics  as  statues  of 
the  Gneco-Roman  age.  Mr 
Farnell  has  figured  and  de- 
scribed one  of  these  from 
Dresden.^  The  London 
sculpture  has  the  short  tunic 
of  the  Roman  type,  while 
the  Dresden  statue  has  "  the 
long  Doric  double  chiton 
that  falls  in  austere  folds  down  to  the  feet " ; 
but  with  this  exception,  the  figures  are  remarkably 
alike.  From  the  position  of  the  arms  and  hands  in 
the  Dresden  statue  "it  is  clear  that  she  was  holding 
the  bow  in  a  peaceful  way  against  her  left  side,  and 
her  right  hand  was  raised  to   the  quiver."     This  is 

^   Faniell,   (aiU.s  of  the   Greek  Sidles,   vol.   ii.   plate  xxxv.  (6),  and 
p.   54.6. 


\Itar  to  DiaiTt,  back  view 


ROMAN   ORIGINS 


61 


precisely  the  interpretation  which  exphiins  the 
London  sculpture,  the  bow  in  her  left  hand  being 
particularly  noticeable.  It  is  also  like  the  Diana 
Venatrix  in  the  I.ouvtc. 

Malcolm,  quoting  from  a  manuscript  dissertation 
of  Dr  Woodward,  relates  the  discovery,  to  the  south- 
west of  the  Cathedral,  between  the 
Deanery  and  Blackfriars,  of  a  bronze 
statuette  of  Diana,  two  and  a  half 
inches  high,  in  the  habit  of  a  huntress, 
with  elaborately  plaited  hair  and 
carrying  a  quiver.  The  image  is 
thus  described :  "  An  icunculus  of 
Diana  made  of  brass  and  two  inches 
and  a  half  in  height.  It  is  in  the 
habit  of  a  huntress  unquestionably 
ancient  and  of  Roman  make.  The 
hair  is  very  handsomely  plaited,  made 
up   into  a  wreath,   passing   on   each       ^^i3  S'  i 

side  the  head  and  collected  into  two  

knots,  a  larger  at  the  top  and  a  lesser  iHI^^      J 
behind  the  head.     The  arms  are  both       Altar  to  Diana, 
bare  and  quite  naked.     At  her  back, 
towards  the  right  shoulder,  hangs  a  quiver,  tied  on 
by  a  fascia  passing  over  that  shoulder  by  the  breast 
under  the  left  arm  round  to  the  back.     In  the  left 
hand  has  been  a  bow,  in  the  right  an  arrow.     The 
habit    is    shortened    and    girt    up    about    her    waist 
after  the   manner  of  the   cinctus   Gabinus,  while   it 
reaches  not  quite  to  her  knees  below  nor  to  the  hams 


62  LONDON 

behind.  On  the  feet  are  the  hunting  buskins,  extend- 
ing over  the  ankles  up  to  the  lower  part  of  the  calf  of 
the  leg."^ 

These  discoveries  establish  the  ftict  of  Diana-worship, 
and  the  next  point  is  the  character  of  that  worship. 
One  almost  universal  element  in  the  worship  of  the 
Greek  Artemis,  and  her  counterpart  the  Roman  Diana, 
is  the  sacrifice  of  stags,  and  therefore  the  discovery  of 
stag  bones  in  great  quantities  is  an  important  fact. 
The  discovery  has  long  been  a  matter  of  dispute,  but  1 
think  on  insufficient  grounds.  Stow  says  definitely 
that  "  there  were  found  more  than  an  hundred  scalpes 
of  oxen  or  kine  in  the  yeare  one  thousand  three 
hundred  and  sixteene,"  ^  and  he  had  good  evidence  for 
this.  Wren  declares  that  he  discovered  in  his  excava- 
tions for  the  new  cathedral  nothing  that  would  confirm 
this  statement ;  ^  but  Bagford  says  "  that  on  the  south 
side  of  the  church  of  late  days,  since  the  fire  at  the  first 
beginning  to  build  St  Paul's  church,  there  were  found 
several  scalps  of  oxen  and  a  large  quantity  of  boars' 
tusks,  with  divers  earthen  vessels,  especially  paterae, 
that  were  of  different  shapes."*  This  is  confirmed  by 
Dr  Woodward,  who,  in  Wren's  time,  had  collected 
specimens  from  this  find.  The  following  extract 
describes  this  collection  :  "  Particularly  the  Ingenious 
Dr  Woodward  acquaints  us,  that  he  has  in  his  Collec- 

1  Malcolm,  Londinium  Redivivum,  vol.  iii.  p.  509,  from  a  MS.  by  Dr 
Woodward,  the  correspondent  of  Wren. 

2  Stow's  Survey  (edit.  Kingsford),  vol.  i.  p.  333. 

3  Wren,  Parentalia,  1750,  pp.  265-267.     (See  Appendix  II.) 

^  Bagford,  Letter  to  Hearne  in  Leland's  Collectanea,  vol.  i.  p.  Ixvii. 


ROMAN    ORIGINS  63 

tion  Tusks  of  Boars,  Horns  of  Oxen  and  of  Stags, 
as  also  the  representations  of  Deer,  and  even  of 
Diana  her  self,  upon  the  Sacrificing  Vessels  digged 
up  near  St  I'aul's  Church ;  and  likewise  a  small 
Image  of  that  Goddess,  found  not  far  off.  Now  it 
appears  from  ancient  Writers,  that  not  only  Stags, 
but  Oxen,  and  Swine  also,  were  sacrificed  to  Diana."  ^ 
This  seems  to  me  quite  conclusive,  and  it  exactly  fits 
the  conditions  of  a  classical  example  which  Dr  Rouse 
quotes  for  the  same  purpose  as  mine,  namely,  the 
antiquity  of  the  custom  with  which  it  is  in  close 
contact.  "  Evidence  has  at  last  been  found  of  the 
antiquity  of  these  customs,"  says  Dr  Rouse  with 
reference  to  the  worship  of  Artemis  in  Greece,  "in 
the  temple  of  Artemis  at  Lusi,  where  have  been  found 
stags'  horns  with  boars'  tusks  and  the  teeth  of  bears 
in  numbers,  apparently  the  relics  of  early  offerings."' 
It  looks  very  much  as  if  Dr  Woodward's  collection 
included  examples  of  temple  objects  similar  to  the 
finds  in  Nicholas  Lane,  and  this  suggests  an  inquiry 
as  to  the  probable  site  of  the  temple  of  Diana.  An 
interesting  description  and  illustration  of  an  ancient 
lamp  by  Knight,  the  biographer  of  Erasmus,  is,  I 
think,  the  starting  -  point.  "  Since  we  have  been 
speaking  of  St  Paul's  Church,  it  may  not  perhaps  be 
unacceptable  to  the  Curious,  if  we  here  present  them 
with  the  Picture  of  an  Earthen  Lamp,  which  was 
found  in  digging  the  Foundation  of  this  Church.     It 

1   Knight's  Life  of  Erasmus,  p.  302.     (See  Appendix  III.) 
-  Rouse,  Greek  Votive  Oferings,  p.  50. 


64 


LONDON 


Roman  lamp  found  in  London,  from  Knight's  Life  of  Erasmus. 


ROMAN    ORIGINS  65 

represents  the  Figure  of  a  Building,  which  the  late 
Mr  Kemp,  into  whose  hands  this  Lamp  came, 
supposed  to  be  the  Temple  of  Diana.  And  he  was 
more  confirm'd  in  this  Opinion,  from  another  Lamp 
of  the  same  sort,  which  was  found  in  the  same  place, 
and  at  the  same  time  with  the  former,  together  with 
several  Boar  Tusks  {Mommient,  Kemp,  par.  1,  pp.  179, 
180).  .  .  .  The  Prospect  of  the  Building,  as  here 
represented,  must  have  been  taken  from  the  South 
side  of  the  River,  as  is  plain  from  the  largness  of  the 
human  Figure  standing  there.  The  shape  of  the  Boat 
on  the  River  is  not  unlike  one  published  by  Bayfius, 
which,  he  sales,  was  drawn  from  an  Antient  Monument. 
The  Lamp  it  self,  being  but  ordinary  Work,  makes 
the  Building  less  correct  and  accurate.  I  offer  it 
therefore  but  as  a  Conjecture,  and  leave  it  to  those 
who  are  better  versed  in  such  Antiquities,  to  judge 
of  it  as  they  please ;  and  whether  from  the  Form  it 
may  appear  more  likely  to  be  a  Roman  or  a  British 
Building.  I  shall  only  add,  that  'tis  no  Objection  to 
its  being  a  Temple,  because  the  Front  looks  to  the 
South :  since  we  are  told  by  Vitruvius,  that  altho' 
Temples  ought  generally  to  be  built,  when  the  Situa- 
tion of  the  Place  will  admit  of  it,  with  their  Front 
Westward  ;  yet  when  they  are  placed  by  Rivers,  they 
should  look  toward  the  Bank,  as  those  did  in  Egypt, 
which  were  near  the  Nile  (Vitruvius,  lib.  iv.  cap.  5) ; 
and  as  the  Building  here  does  on  this  Lamp,  the 
Draught  of  which  was  communicated  to  me  by  the 

Learned  Mr  Ward,  Rhetorick  Professor  of  Gresham 

5 


66  LONDON 

College.  To  whom  I  must  own  my  self  obliged  for 
the  first  Knowledge  of  this  Curiosity,  as  well  as  his 
Ingenious  Conjecture  concerning  it."^ 

The  Victoria  History  of  London  records  this  find, 
and  reproduces  the  engraving  of  it  at  the  half-size, 
pointing  out  that  "  the  figure  on  the  bank  is  really 
handling  a  net  and  is  not  a  soul  waiting  to  be  ferried 
over  the  Styx  by  Charon."^  This  is  the  representa- 
tion of  a  fishing  incident  which  has  already  been 
compared  with  the  Roman  worship  of  the  Celtic  god 
Lud  at  Lydney,  and  which  forms  perhaps  the  closest 
direct  connection  with  that  cult. 

There  are  other  remains  which  have  been  classified 
as  belonging  to  temple  buildings.  The  most  im- 
portant was  discovered  by  Sir  Christopher  Wren, 
and  described  as  follows  in  his  Parentalia : 

"The  parochial  church  of  St  Mary  le  Bow  in 
Cheapside  requir'd  to  be  rebuilt  after  the  great 
fire.  .  .  .  Upon  opening  the  ground  a  foundation  was 
discern'd  firm  enough  for  the  new  intended  fabrick, 
which  (on  further  inspection  after  digging  down 
sufficiently  and  removing  what  earth  or  rubbish  lay 
in  the  way)  appear'd  to  be  the  walls,  with  the  windows 
also  and  the  pavement,  of  a  temple  or  church  of 
Roman  workmanship  intirely  bury'd  under  the  level 
of  the  present  street  ...  to  range  with  the  street- 
houses  of  Cheapside,  to  his  surprise  he  sunk  about 
18  feet  deep  through  made  ground,  and  then  imagin'd 

1  Knifrht's  Life  of  Erasmus,  p.  301  and  pp.  302-303. 

2  ridona  History  oj  London,  p.  25. 


ROMAN   ORIGINS  67 

he  was  come  to  the  natural  soil  and  hard  gravel, 
but  upon  full  examination  it  appear'd  to  be  a  Roman 
causeway  of  rough  stone  close  and  well  rammed 
with  Roman  brick  and  rubbish  at  the  bottom  for  a 
foundation,  and  all  firmly  cemented.  This  causeway 
was  four  feet  thick  [the  thickness  of  the  Via  Appia, 
according  as  INJons.  Montfaucon  measur'd  it,  was 
about  three  Parisian  feet,  or  three  feet  two  inches 
and  a  half  English]."  ^ 

If  we  take  the  Walbrook  as  the  centre  of  the 
river-worship  of  Roman  London,  together  with  the 
sites  of  temple  buildings  at  Goldsmiths'  Hall  and 
St  JNlary-le-Bow,  there  is  a  considerable  area  which 
apparently  would  have  been  mainly  devoted  to  the 
worship  of  the  gods.  It  is  not,  however,  too  exten- 
sive to  meet  the  facts.  It  would  be  much  less  than 
the  total  of  the  independent  areas  devoted  to  the 
Christian  Church  in  the  city  of  the  Middle  Ages 
and  of  to-day,  and  it  will  help  us  to  understand  a 
condition  of  things  which  will  arise  when,  in  the 
next  chapter,  we  shall  be  discussing  survivals. 
London's  religion  was,  as  we  have  seen,  a  great 
thing  under  the  Celts.  It  continued  a  great  thing, 
and  became  a  greater  thing,  under  the  Romans."  As 
a  religious  centre  Roman  London  makes  a  special 
appeal  to  the  liistorian.     The  appeal  has  always  been 

1  Wren,  Parentalia,  1750,  p.  265. 

-  The  bronze  figures  of  Aj^ollo,  Mercury,  Cybele,  Jupiter,  and 
Atys  (Roach  Smith,  Illustrations,  plates  xv.-xix.)  also  illustrate  the 
character  of  the  reliijrion  of  Roman  London. 


68  LONDON 

neglected  —  indeed,  has  scarcely  been  understood. 
But  cities  in  the  ancient  world  were  religious  cities,^ 
and  to  understand  early  London  it  is  necessary  to 
understand  its  religion. 

Pavements,  baths,  columns,  sculptures  are  the  chief 
signs  of  the  material  remains  of  Roman  London. 
These  go  towards  creating  the  picture,  but  do  not 
create  its  atmosphere  nor  its  design.  Language, 
costume,  and  religion  make  the  strongest  combina- 
tion of  evidence  upon  which  to  build  up  the  recon- 
structed elements  of  Roman 
London.  Not  only  was  the 
official  language  Roman,  but 
the  people's  language  was 
also  Roman.  Roman  men 
and  Roman  matrons  dressed 

Roman  bowl  found  at  Bishopsgate,      J^  a  Stylc  of  which  the  Saudal 

in  Guildhall  Museum.  *' 

is  the  type,  although  the 
colder  climate  of  Roman  London  might  have  de- 
manded something  different.  If  Roman  worship 
was  continued,  not  only  in  the  temple,  but  in  the 
house,  there  was  not  only  a  city  organisation  of  the 
Roman  type,  but  also  a  family  organisation  of  the 
Roman  type.  If,  with  this  in  mind,  all  the  material 
fragments  could  be  gathered  together  and  placed 
in  a  museum  ground  in  some  sort  of  fashion  approxi- 
mating to  the  original  find-spots,  there  would  be 
revealed  the  presence  of  a  city  in  Roman  Britain 
possessed  of  a  full  Roman  life,  and  above  all  things 

^   Warde  Fowler^  Religious  Ea-pei'icnce  of  the  Roman  People,  p.  225. 


ROMAN    ORIGIXS  69 

of  a  full  Roman  organisation — greatest  city  in  Roman 
Britain,  greatest  in  extent,  in  wealth,  in  culture, 
greatest  in  influence. 

It  is  important  to  note  one  thing  more.  London, 
in  taking  up  the  position  of  city-state  in  Britain, 
was  only  following  upon  continental 
examples  of  which  Nimes,  Aries,  and 
Trier  are  the  most  famous  examples. 
Candidates  for  the  office  of  Ca?sar  in 
the    later    Empire    fixed    their    seat    of 

,  Coin  (jf  Carausius. 

government    as    their    hrst    great    and 

essential  act.     And  the  city  so  selected  became  the 

Rome  of  the  new  Ca?sar.     Much  the  same  happened 

to  London.     She  could  not  rival  the  cities  of  Gaul  in 

the  position  attained  under  this  experience  because 

of  her   island  position,  but  she  moved  in  the  same 

direction. 

At  this  point  we  come  upon  events  which  must 
have  happened  within  this  city  of  Augusta,  but  failed 
to  be  recorded  by  history.  There  are  only  spasms 
of  light  thrown  upon  the  long  period 
of  four  hundred  years  during  which  the 
Roman  Empire  included  amongst  its 
city-institutions  the  civitas  of  London, 
and  the  loss  of  Fronto's  oration  addressed 

Coin  of  Alectus. 

to  Antonmus  Pius  on  the  British  war^ 
is  serious  when  we  have  so  little.  The  famous 
story  of  Agricola  by  the  great  historian  Tacitus 
only   makes   regret    for   tlie   loss   the   stronger.      It 

^  Eumenius,  Panegyr.  Constaiitio  Ctesari,  1-i. 


70  LONDON 

is,  however,  important  to  note  that  the  Roman  his- 
torian, poet,  or  panegyrist  noted  events  in  Britain 
for  one  purpose,  namely,  the  uprising  of  a  claimant 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  Empire.  Britain  was 
the  veritable  home  of  conspiring  candidates  for  the 
purple.  They  include  not  only  ambitious  rebels, 
but  great  rulers,  and  London,  as  its 
coinage  shows,  is  always  the  centre  of 
their  doings.  Carausius  made  his  head- 
quarters there,  and  the  followers  of 
Alectus   fouffht   their   last   fight   there. 

Coin  ot  Albinus.        .  i,   •  i  i       •  -rw    •       • 

Albinus    was    elected    in    Britam,    and 
the  army  fought   for   him   before   the   city  of  Lug- 
dunum.     Lollianus,  Victorianus,  Postumus,  the  two 
Tetrici,   and  Marius  are  supposed  to  have  assumed 
the   purple    in    Britain.     Bonosus,   of  British   blood, 
and    Proculus    were    supported    by    Britain.       Mag- 
nentius,    also    of    British    blood,    was 
emperor    for    three    years.     And    in    a   4#.>^^^J^'v,  \ 
later  age  there  are  also  Marcus,  Gratian     .-^   ./';'   'Vn 
Municeps,     Constantine  —  an     obscure      -.- ;   /3     / 
soldier  with  a  great  name — and  Maxi-         ^<;iL-l--«^ 

1  •  J.    J        ••!      J.1  1        Coin  of  Lollianus. 

mus  who  were  mvested  with  the  purple 
by  the  army  in  Britain.  To  have  produced  men 
of  this  type  Britain  must  have  possessed  and  pre- 
served the  spirit  of  Empire,  and  with  the  spirit 
the  outward  manifestation  of  it — all  the  ceremonial 
formulge  which  appertained  to  the  dignity  of  the 
Augustus  and  the  Cassar  of  the  Empire,  the  Roman 
system   of  government   by   the    city,    Roman   laws, 


ROMAN   ORIGINS 


71 


CoinofVictorianus, 


Roman  power  and  wealth,  and  above  all,  the  Roman 
political  atmosphere. 

Locked  up  in  this  Roman  city  of  Augusta  there 
are  whole  masses  of  constitutional  ceremony,  laws, 
and  practices  which  become  London  customs,  London 
law,  and  London  usages  during  the  long  period 
of  history  through  which  we  are  going 
to  work.  Because  we  cannot  unlock 
the  Roman  gateways  and  get  a  full 
view  of  these  origins  in  their  every 
form,  it  does  not  mean  that  we  cannot 
get  at  them  at  all.  These  sort  of 
things  are  capable  of  living  on  in  the  minds  of 
generations  who  have  succeeded  those  who  actually 
lived  under  them.  They  survive  the  material  shell 
in  which  they  were  generated,  or  in  which  they  de- 
veloped, long  after  it  w^as  destroyed.  The  great  fact 
of  continued  life  will  restore  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  the  home  from  which 
they  have  come.  It  will  do  more  than 
this.  It  will  show  the  vitality  and  the 
power  they  possessed,  and  it  will  show 
their  enormous  utility  to  those  later 
ages  unconscious  of  the  question  of  origins.  Origins 
belong  to  historical  science ;  institutions  are  matters 
of  present  life.  The  pages  of  London  records  are 
strewn  with  the  formula  "  according  to  ancient 
custom  " — a  source  of  strength  through  all  the  ages, 
in  all  the  struggles.  And  that  ancient  custom  will 
be  found  behind  the  gateways  of  Roman  Augusta. 


Coin  of  Postumus. 


72  LONDON 

There  is  surely  in  this  state  of  things  a  parallehsm, 
beyond  the  formal  remains,  material  and  constitu- 
tional, between  the  city-institution  of  Rome  and  the 
city-institution  of  London.  Both  developed  along 
the  lines  of  city-state,  Rome  to  become  mistress  of 
the  world  by  conquest  and  by  government,  London 
to  become  mistress  of  new  elements  in  a  new  form  of 
civilisation.  The  results  are  so  different  that  the  sense 
of  comparison  is  not  apparent.  This,  however,  comes 
not  from  the  results,  but  from  the  causes.  These  are 
so  alike  that  we  must  recognise  their 
common  origin  in  the  projection  of  city 
civilisation  beyond  the  range  of  the  city 
domain  into  the  range  of  the  state 
^  .     ,^    .        domain — in  a  word,  we  have  arrived  at 

Loin  oi  letncus. 

the  institution  of  the  city-state. 
There  are  no  new  discoveries,  no  new  material 
facts  described  in  this  chapter.  All  the  objects 
have  been  before  the  archeeological  world  for  many 
years.  But  they  have  not  been  called  upon  to 
surrender  the  full  story  they  have  to  tell.  I  am 
not  satisfied  with  their  museum  values,  and  so 
have  endeavoured  to  find  out  what  living  force 
they  possess.  They  mean  much  in  the  life  of  the 
great  city,  standing  for  certain  aspects  of  city  life 
which  did  not  cease  when  London  was  pushed  out 
of  the  Roman  Empire.  She  was  a  Roman  city 
at  the  beginning  of  her  history  in  England.  We 
shall  see  her  being  gradually  absorbed  into  the 
English  state,  gradually  and  peacefully,  not  suddenly 


ROMAN    ORIGINS  73 

or  forcefully.  And  absorption  did  not  mean  destruc- 
tion. Her  position  among  institutions  in  England 
was  not  the  position  of  a  city,  but  of  a  city-institution. 
These  are  the  essential  facts  of  this  earliest  stage. 
They  must  govern  the  historical  consideration  of  the 
later  stages,  and  they  give  to  Roman  London  the 
foremost  place  in  her  great  history. 


CHAPTER    IV 

THE    SURVIVAL    OF    THINGS    ANCIENT 

The  modern  city  of  London  in  the  midst  of  a  larger 
liOndon  is  the  survival  of  an  ancient  thing.  It  is 
the  product  of  history,  not  of  a  sovereign  power  or 
of  political  statesmanship.  It  appeals  for  protection 
to  history,  and  in  a  mute  sort  of  way  the  appeal  is 
answered.  It  is  the  greatest  survival  in  the  country, 
not  necessarily  the  most  remarkable,  but 
certainly  the  greatest,  because,  though 
resting  mainly  upon  custom  and  tradi- 
tion, it  has  legal  and  institutional  status. 
It  is  not  improper  to  make  this  the 

Coin  of  Marius.         ,       ,  .  •     ,       p  •  •  . 

starting  -  point  tor  an  inquiry  as  to 
whether  we  should  expect  to  find  within  this  shell 
of  survival  many  internal  elements  which,  surviving 
themselves  in  a  strong  form,  have  helped  to  preserve 
through  the  centuries  the  survival  of  the  shell  itself. 
I  think  this  way  of  stating  the  position  is  a  good  one  ; 
but  whether  it  be  so  or  not,  the  fact  remains  that  in 
the  city  of  I  iOndon  there  are  more  survivals  from  past 
history  than  can  be  found  within  the  compass  of  any 
other  British  city,  or  of  any  other  area  in  Britain. 
These  survivals  form  an  important  part  of  the  story 

74 


THE  SUHVIVAL  OF  TIIIXGS  ANCIENT    75 

of  London,  and  we  must  examine  the  nature  of  them 
before  proceeding  with  evidence  of  the  influence  they 
have  exerted  through  succeeding  ages.  There  are 
primary  and  secondary  survivals.  Primary  survivals 
are  those  which  are  identified  directly  with  the 
original,  a  simple  continuation,  in  a  gradually  less 
perfect  form,  of  custom,  rite,  or  belief  which  were 
once  living  parts  of  the  social  organism.  Secondary 
survivals  are  those  which  are  caused  by  or  result 
from  an  original  element  in  an  early  social  organi- 
sation, but  have  grown  to  be  something  different 
from  the  original  itself  because  they  have  gone  on 
developing  during  their  period  of  survival.  Roman 
London  possesses  both  these  kinds  of  survivals. 
The  primary  belong  to  London  as 
essential  parts  of  its  Roman  life.  The 
secondary  belong  to  London  as  parts 
of  its  later  life  derived  from  Roman 
London.     The  secondary  survivals,  by 

p         ,  1  II'  .1  1 1  Coin  of  Maximus. 

tar  the  most  extensive  as  they  are  the 
most   important,   supply  the  evidence   for   the   con- 
tinuity of  Roman  influences. 

There  is,  too,  a  specially  Celtic  survival  which 
appears  most  strongly  in  the  post-Roman  period, 
that  period  of  a  hundred  years  which  has  been 
neglected  by  the  historian.  It  is  synchronous  with 
the  uprising  of  Celticism  all  over  the  country,  against 
which  the  historian  Gildas  wrote  so  bitterly,  and 
which  assisted,  if  it  did  not  produce  the  strength  of, 
the  long  struggle  between  Saxon  invader  and  Celtic 


76  LONDON 

Briton.  The  Roman  cities  of  Britain  were,  as  we 
have  seen,  left  to  govern  the  country  by  the  departing 
Romans.  But  they  could  not  do  it  alone.  There 
was  no  cohesion  amongst  them.  They  formed  neither 
a  federated  nor  a  state  government.  Their  fighting 
forces  were  hopelessly  insufficient,  as  legion  after 
legion  of  the  Roman  army  of  occupation  passed  along 
the  roadways,  constructed  by  and  for  the  legions, 
to  the  ports  of  embarkation.  London  must  have 
witnessed  this  terrible  sight  with  a  feeling  of  painful 
bewilderment,  for  so  many  of  the  roadways  converged 
upon  her — eight  out  of  the  fifteen  great  roadways  of 
the  province.  In  their  dilemma  the  cities  turned  to 
the  tribes.  The  Celtic  Britons  at  the  end  of  the 
Roman  period  were  still  tribesmen.  They  were  in 
the  mass  neither  Romanised  citizens  nor  nationalised 
Britons,  though  attempts  have  been  made  by  great 
authorities  to  prove  both  these  conditions.  The 
proof  of  tribalism  is  contained  in  many  important 
facts.  The  most  important  of  these  facts  is  that 
after  being  driven  finally  into  the  hills  of  western 
Britain— Wales,  Cumberland,  and  Cornwall — they 
lived  the  tribal  life  in  accordance  with  an  elaborate 
system  of  tribal  laws  which  were  codified  in  post- 
Roman  times.  They  had  also  a  tribal  religion,  for  the 
Christian  Church  in  Wales  was  tribal  in  form,  as  Mr 
Bund  has  conclusively  shown.^  Of  less  importance, 
but  of  great  significance,  are  inscriptions  as  at  Caer- 
went,  which  show  the  independent  tribal  organisation 

1  F.  W.  Willis  Bund,  The  Celtic  Church  in  JVales. 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT    77 

of  the  Britons  acting  on  occasions  in  friendly  associa- 
tion with  the  Roman  city.  The  Caerwent  stone  was 
erected  by  order  of  the  civitas  of  the  Silures  in  honour 
of  a  Roman  officer  named  Tiberius  Claudius  Paulinus 
in  command  of  the  second  legion,  who  had  also 
been  proconsul  of  the  provinces  of  Narbonne  and 
Lugdunum  in  Gaul.^  The  tribal  organisation  of  the 
Silures  in  the  third  century  is  here  shown  to  have 
remained  untouched  by  the  Roman  civilisation  of 
the  city,  though  it  formed  part  of  the  usual  Roman 
system  of  government  adopted  in  lands  occupied  by 
tribal  peoples. 

The  cities  and  the  tribes  fought  the  English 
together,  and  the  strangeness  of  this  amalgam  of 
wholly  dissimilar  institutions  appears  over  and  over 
again  in  the  personal  and  political  history  of  the 
period,  and  above  all  things  in  the  traditional  history 
of  the  period.  Generals,  Roman  trained,  if  not 
Roman  born,  become  the  heroes  of  Celtic  tribesmen 
whom  they  led  to  victory.  Celtic  chieftains  become 
the  heroes  of  the  cities  when  they  took  up  the  task. 
It  is  in  strict  accord  with  this  that  history  or  tradition 
says  of  Vortigern  that  he  convoked  the  citizens  of 
London."  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  Roman 
Artorius,  of  whom  we  are  told  that  he  "  used  to  fight 
against  the  Saxons  in  company  with  the  kings  of  the 
Britons,  but  was   himself  dUiV   bcUornin,'"  developed 

^  This  inscription  does  not  appear  to  have  been  pubhshed.  It  is 
not  given  in  the  C.I.L. 

-  Matthew  of  Westminster,  Chronicle,  lib.  vi.  cap.  vii. 


78  LONDON 

into  the  hero-king  Arthur ;  or  that  the  Celtic 
Giirthrigernus  should,  even  in  his  woeful  unsuccess, 
become  a  centre-figure  for  the  contempt  of  cities. 
The  legend  or  the  history  of  Ambrosius  is  to  the 
same  effect.  He  was  son  of  a  Roman 
consul,  he  rose  to  greatness  after  the 
death  of  the  valiant  Vortimer,  son  of 
Gurthrigernus,  and  became  chief  among 
the  kings  of  Britain. 

Amidst  this  material  for  the  making 
of  heroic  tradition  there  arises  a  great 
conception  which  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  personalities  of  the  city's  life.  There 
is  not  a  single  London  hero  in  this  tradi- 
tion. It  concerns  itself  entirely  with  the 
faiths,  the  hopes,  and  the  culture  of  the 
city.  Separated  into  fragments  by  its 
unequal  record,  it  resumes  its  original 
unity  when  investigation  of  it  is  complete. 
My  own  experience  in  working  out  the 
various  phases  of  research  into  this  tradi- 

Roman  pincers, 

iron,  in  Guild-  tiou   will   help   to    au    undcrstandmg    of 

hall  Museum.  , .    .  .  _    ,  •    i        i 

what  the  tradition  is.  1  began  with  the 
discovery  of  the  several  fragments,  treating  them  as 
independent  survivals  having  no  relation  to  each 
other.  Included  in  these  fragments  is  religious  custom 
solemnly  carried  on  year  after  year  in  obedience  to  no 
higher  authority  than  that  of  custom  ;  a  series  of  legal 
customs  obviously  carried  on  almost  under  protest  in 
obedience  to  the  same  authority ;   traditions  which 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT    71) 


relate  to  a  lordship  exercised  by  London  under  a 
"  King  of  London,"  whose  title  is  repeated  in  his- 
torical documents  and  evidence ;  traditions  which 
relate  to  a  reverence  for  I^ondon  in  its  material 
aspect.  AVe  may  fairly  conjecture  that  what  is  to 
be  found  now  are  but  the  very  last 
survivals  from  a  much  larger  body. 
My  next  stage  of  research  was 
the  discovery  of  connecting  links 
between  all  these  apparently  dis- 
connected fragments.  Then  I  dis- 
covered, further,  that  a  certain 
group  of  these  fragments  of  London 
tradition  came  to  us  not  from 
London  herself,  not  from  Lon- 
doners who  had  taken  upon  them- 
selves to  record  customs  and  tradi- 
tions, but  from  Welsh  sources. 
The  linked-up  unity  of  the  separ- 
ated fragments  assumed  a  further 
element  of  unity  in  the  one  source, 
and  that  a  Welsh  source,  for  the 
carrying  on  of  the  tradition.  The 
last  stage  in  my  research  was  to  discover  the  origins 
of  the  traditional  fragments  as  a  unity,  in  the  religious 
practices,  the  legal  ceremonial,  the  political  instincts 
of  ancient  Rome.  No  scholar  is  likely  seriously  to 
dispute  these  various  conclusions  when  they  are  before 
him  at  length.  He  would  not  suggest  that  the  clergy 
of  the  early  English  Church  would  deliberately  select 


Roman  pincers,  iron,  in 
Guildhall  Museum. 


80  LONDON 

a  known  pagan  cult  for  incorporation  in  the  service 
of  their  cathedral ;  that  lawyers  fresh  from  a  revived 
study  of  Roman  law  at  the  great  school  at  Abingdon, 
or  in  the  monastic  establishments,  would  deliberately 
copy  the  practices  of  the  Roman  forum  or  of  the 
Roman  religion  in  its  corporate  form ;  nor  would  he 
suggest  that  the  Welsh  agency  for  carrying  on  the 
tradition  prevents  the  looking  back  to  Roman  origins. 
There  is  no  room  for  surmises  that  would 
deny  to  such  evidence  the  value  of  an 
archaeological  discovery,  and  he  must  look 
to  Roman  Londinium  for  the  source  of 
that  discovery. 

We  will  pause  for  a  moment  at  an  in- 
teresting place-name  which  occurs  in  the 
boundary  of  the  Tower,  temp.  Richard  II. 
Roman    key,  The    cutry    dcscribcs    this    boundary    as 
GuMhaiiMu-  "from  the  water  side   unto   the  end  of 
seum.  Pety  Wales  to  the  end  of  Tower  Streete."^ 

The  name  Pety  Wales  may  be  a  corruption  from  a 
name  wholly  unconnected  with  Wales,  but  in  view  of 
the  survival  outside  of  the  place-name  of  Walworth  it 
does  not  seem  extravagant  to  class  the  city  name  also 
as  a  survival.  That  it  had  a  recognised  position  is 
shown  by  early  documents.  A  grant  dated  22nd 
January  1353-4  by  "  Joan  Potyn,  widow  of  Gilbert 
Potyn  of  Petit  Wales  hard  by  the  Tower  of  London," 
relates  to  tenements  and  quay  and  other  "  appurten- 
ances in  the  parish  of  All  Saints  Berkynggechirche 

1  Archosologia,  vol.  xviii.  p.  280. 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT    81 

in  the  lane  of  Petit  Wales."  Another  grant,  dated 
Christmas  1397,  is  a  demise  "of  a  house  or  mansion 
situated  to  the  eastward  of  the  said  Thomas's  wharf 
in  Petit  Wales  in  the  parish  of  All  Hallows  Berkyng- 
chirche  hard  by  the  Tower  of  London."  A  third  deed 
dated  20th  December  1424  is  a  grant  of  "two  tene- 
ments with  adjoining  quay  and  appurtenances  situate 
in  Petit  Wales  Street."^  Stow  mentions  this  district 
of  Petty  Wales,  and  records  an  additional  fact  of  im- 
portance, and  then  proceeds  to  state  a  tradition.  The 
additional  fact  is  that  "  towardes  the  east  end  thereof, 
namely  over  agaynst  Galley  Key,  Wooll  Key,  and 
the  Custome  House,  there  have  beene  of  olde  time 
some  large  buildings  of  stone  the  mines  whereof  doe 
yet  remaine."  Then  comes  the  tradition:  "The 
common  people  affirm  Julius  C«sar  to  be  the  builder 
thereof  Some  are  of  another  opinion,  and  that  a 
more  likely,  that  this  great  stone  building  was  some 
time  the  lodging  appointed  for  the  Princes  of  Wales 
when  they  repayred  to  this  citie  .  .  .  and  where  the 
Earles  of  Briton  were  lodged  without  Aldersgate  the 
streete  is  called  Britaine  Streete.""  It  will  be  said  at 
once  that  such  a  tradition  is  worthless,  but  let  it  be 
considered  side  by  side  with  the  general  Welsh 
character  of  London  tradition  and  it  will  be  found 
entirely  consistent  with  all  that  is  known  of  the 
position  of  London  in  post-Roman  and  Celtic  times. 
In  particular  it  reveals  clear  relationship  to  that  king- 

1   Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  J'urious  Collccfiotis,  vol.  iv.  pj).  335-337. 
-  Stow's  Survey  (edit.  Kingsford),  vol.  i.  p.  136. 

6 


82  LONDON 

ship  of  London  which  in  tradition  shows  Welsh  kings 
deriving  power  from  "  the  crown  of  London "  and 
paying  tribute  to  "the  King  of  London,"  and  in 
historical  documents  shows  the  King  of  London  to 
be  subordinate  only  to  the  King  of  the  English. 

The  conclusion  is  inevitable,  namely,  that  the 
tradition  of  London  arose  amidst  the  doings  of  the 
century  during  which  the  history  of  London  was 
so  strangely  silent.  It  reveals  the  Celt  turning 
in  his  distant  homes,  during  his  hard  struggle  for 
political  existence,  towards  London  as  to  the  centre 
of  all  movement  political  and  military,  always  to- 
wards London  and  to  no  other  city  in  Britain.  It 
shows,  further,  the  wonderment  of  the  Celtic  tribes- 
man for  the  buildings  of  the  great  city,  buildings 
constructed  by  giants,  and  for  the  wealth  that  is  con- 
tained in  these  buildings.  The  wonderment  of  the 
Celt  is  the  measure  of  his  traditions  about  London, 
the  expression  of  his  belief  in  giant  builders  is  the 
measure  of  his  ignorance  of  such  buildings. 

And  then,  finally,  there  is  the  tradition  of  a  strong 
Celtic  rehgious  reverence  for  l^ondon,  which  can  only 
be  explained  by  the  continued  existence  under  Roman 
guardianship  of  the  old  Celtic  worship  of  the  god  Lud, 
added  to  the  contimious  ritual  of  the  Roman  worship 
of  Diana.  To  the  archaeological  evidence  of  this 
worship,  as  set  out  in  the  last  chapter,  is  to  be  added 
the  historical  and  traditional  evidence  of  its  con- 
tiiuiance.  If  this  city  rehgion  was  as  strong  in 
reality  as  it  appears  in  tradition  it  would  have  left 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT    83 

evidence  of  its  vitality.  As  Friedliinder  says  gener- 
ally of  the  religion  of  the  Empire,  **  not  only  is  the 
persistence  in  late  antiquity  of  all  Greek  and  Roman 
cults  of  importance  an  undisputed  fact,  but  also 
the  retention  of  obscure  and  local  cults,  ceremonies, 
usages,  and  forms  which  were  no  longer  intelligible  is 
amply  attested  in  the  case  of  so  many  different  lands 
that  considering  this  extremely  tenacious  vitality  of 
religious  tradition  any  great  or  essential  diminution 
of  it  in  the  course  of 
centuries  appears  on 
the  whole  inconceiv- 
able";^ and  he  con- 
siders that  "  belief  in 

the  gods  mamtamed  Roman  steelyard,  bronze,  found  at  St  Mildred's, 
itself     for      nearly     five  Poultry,  in  the  Guildhall  Museum. 

hundred  years  against  Christianity,  by  which  it  was 
finally  overwhelmed." "  As  far  as  Britain  is  concerned 
this  is  fully  borne  out  by  a  remarkable  passage  quoted 
from  a  treatise  ascribed  to  TertuUian  in  which  he 
mentions  "  the  districts  of  Britain  untrodden  by  the 
Romans  but  subject  to  Christ."^  This  clearly  means 
that  the  Roman  centres  retained  their  Roman 
religious  beliefs  and  observances.  The  evidence  of 
London  having  been  governed  by  these  rules  of 
religious  changes  in  the  Empire  is,  I  believe,  con- 
tained in  the  transactions  of  the  early  seventh  century 

^   Friedliinder,  Roman  Life  and  Manners  under  the  Ear!//  Empire, 
vol.  iii.  p.  155. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  102.  3  Ibid.,  p.  206. 


84  LONDON 

when  Bishop  Mellitus  was  turned  out  of  London  by 
its  pagan  citizens,  who  had  a  high  priest  of  their 
own.^  The  historian  does  not  state  what  paganism 
this  was,  and  it  has  been  hastily  assumed  to  have 
been  Anglo-Saxon.  All  the  evidence  is  against  such 
an  assumption.  Neither  Ead bald's  Christianity  nor 
Eadbald's  recently  rejected  Wodenisin  appealed  to 
London,  and  the  antagonism  to  the  influence  of  the 
Kentish  king  is  most  likely  to  be  expressive  of  the  an- 
tagonism of  London  paganism  to  the  Kentish  pagan- 
ism, or  of  the  ancient  religion  of  the  Empire  at  its 
decaying  stage  meeting  in  a  last  struggle  the  new 
religion  which  was  entering  on  its  mission.  There 
are  no  signs  at  all  of  Anglo-Saxon  paganism  in 
London.  The  supposition  is  based  entirely  upon  the 
theory  of  Saxon  dominance  of  London  tliroughout, 
of  which  there  is  no  evidence  at  all.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  many  signs  of  Roman  paganism,  and 
their  final  form  is  surely  in  the  St  Paul's  ceremony 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  I  have  argued,  and 
shall  argue  again,  that  the  ritual  of  St  Paul's  down 
to  the  seventeenth  century  preserved  the  actual  rites 
of    the    Roman    worship    of   Diana,    and    that    this 

1  Beda,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  ii.  cap.  vi.,  in  6l6  records  that  the 
Londoners  would  not  receive  Bishop  Mellitus^  "  choosing  rather  to 
be  under  their  idolatrous  high  priests,  for  King  Eadbald  had  not 
so  much  autliority  as  his  father,  nor  was  he  able  to  restore  the 
bishop  against  the  will  and  consent  of  the  pagans."  "  Mellitum 
uero  Lundonienses  episcopum  recipere  noluerunt,  idolatris  magis 
pontificibus  seruire  gaudentes.  Non  enim  tanta  erat  ei,  quanta 
patri  ipsius  regni  potestas,  ut  etiam  nolentibus  ac  contradicentibus 
paganis  antistitem  suae  posset  ecclesite  reddere." 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT    85 

reveals  a  religious  strength  which  back  in  the  ages 
must  have  told  strongly  for  the  conception  of* 
London  as  the  mother  city  of  both  tribal  Celt  and 
Romanised  Briton. 

I  am  aware  that  at  present  this  view  of  the 
tradition  of  London  is  not  clear,  and  that  the  proof 
of  it  has  still  to  be  worked  out  in  detail,  but  I  hope 
soon  to  publish  my  proof  in  a  separate  study.  Clas- 
sical students  are  fully  conscious  of  the  value  of  city 
traditions,  as  Mr  Leaf  has  recently  shown  in  his 
study  of  Troy,  and  the  London  tradition  is  not  less 
expressive.  It  will  be  a  new  epoch  in  London 
history.  It  will  show  that  London  during  the 
Celtic  revival  was  great  beyond  Welsh  conception, 
because  of  the  magnificence  of  her  Roman  life,  and, 
above  all  things,  because  she  was  the  centre  of  a 
Celtic  religious  cult.  This  double  stream  of  Celtic 
tradition,  plainly  discernible  in  forgotten  and  un- 
heeded survivals  both  of  belief  and  ritual,  places 
Roman  London  in  an  altogether  unique  position, 
makes  of  her  an  institution  outside  the  tribal  con- 
ceptions both  of  Celt  and  Saxon,  and  gives  her 
quietly,  through  this  means,  a  position  which  no 
other  means  could  have  secured. 

One  cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  this  tra- 
dition of  London,  arising  during  the  great  Celtic 
uprising  of  the  fifth  century,  is  the  tradition  of  real 
events — events  by  which  London  assumes,  or  is 
endowed  with,  the  attributes  of  a  city-state.  These 
attributes,  of  course,  never  became  either  in  origin 


86  LONDON 

or  in  continuation  as  the  attributes  of  Rome  had 
become  in  origin  and  continuation.  They  were  on 
a  much  more  lowly  scale.  But  they  were  of  the 
same  order.  London  exercising  certain  rights,  con- 
stitutional not  revolutionary  rights,  in  connection 
with  the  sovereignty  of  the  kingdom ;  London 
using  Roman  laws  in  opposition  to  English  law ; 
London  possessing  in  its  cathedral  ritual  of  the 
seventeenth  century  fragments  of  a  Diana  temple 
worship,  is  a  city  with  particularly  definite  char- 
acteristics. 

London  therefore  comes  from  the  silent  fifth 
century  as  a  living  entity  by  the  help  of  Celtic 
tradition — a  tradition  which  I  think  includes  the 
restoration  of  the  name  of  London.  This  name 
had  been  displaced  under  Roman  rule  by  the 
honorific  name  of  Augusta,  and  I  have  suggested 
that  it  was  retained  throughout  for  the  inner  city.^ 
It  was,  I  think,  restored  to  the  larger  London  by 
Celtic  influence.  Palgrave  conceals  in  a  footnote 
his  opinion  of  the  significance  of  the  restored  name 
of  London :  "  the  old  name  must  have  remained  in 
constant  use  amongst  the  common  people."^  This  is, 
however,  meaningless  historically.  The  question  is, 
Who  were  the  common  people  ?  The  only  people 
who  could  have  influence  in  such  a  matter  at  this 
time  were  London  citizens  and  Celtic  outsiders,  and 
the  latter  are  the  more  likely  to  have  brought  about 

'    The  Ma/nng  of  London,  p.  56. 

2  Palgrave,  Hist,  of  Eng.  CommonweaJlh,  vol.  i.  p.  3S5,  note. 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANXIEXT    87 

this    interesting    restoration    of   the    ancient    Celtic 
name. 

It  is  in  accord  with  this  conception  of  events  that 
the  Boudicca  tradition  should  have  been  preserved  in 
the  name  of  "  Boadicea's  tomb  "  given  to  the  well- 
known  mound  on  Hampstead  Heath.  I  have  else- 
where explained  the  true  meaning  of  this  mound  as 
a  Roman  boundary  mound,^  but  the  fact  that  it  has 
been  used  as  the  locus  to  mark  the  one  historical 
record  of  the  destruction  of  I^ondon  helps  us  to 
understand  the  full  significance  of  the  absence  of  a 
corresponding  record  of  destruction  in  Anglo-Saxon 
times.  Whatever  history  there  was  to  record  of 
this  period  would  have  been  Anglo-Saxon  history, 
in  speech,  in  form,  in  chronicle,  or  in  poem ;  and 
Anglo-Saxon  history  would  not  have  been  slow  to 
put  on  record  the  destruction  of  London.'-  Anglo- 
Saxon  thought  went  wholly  to  the  destruction  not 
to  the  conservation  of  cities.  In  the  great  poem  of 
Beowulf  we  seem  to  have  English  alterations  of  a 
Scandinavian  original,  and  one  of  these  alterations 
is  the  most  remarkable  description  of  the  treasure- 
house  which  the  hero  attacked,  and  which  is  shown 

^  See  my  Governance  of  London,  pp.  100-103. 

-  The  charming  account  of  Archbishop  .El trie's  metliod  of 
historical  research  makes  this  certain.  "  And  straightway  he  sent 
for  all  the  wisest  men  he  anywhere  knew  of,  and  also  those  excellent 
men  who  could  say  the  truest  how  everything  had  been  in  this  land 
in  the  days  of  their  elders,  besides  what  he  himself  had  learned 
from  books  and  wise  men"  (^Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle,  anno  99.5,  trans, 
by  E.  E.  C.  Gomme). 


88  LONDON 

by  Dr  Stjerna  to  be  a  close  description  of  a  Roman 

public    building.^     In   the    poem    preserved    in    the 

Codeac  Ejconiensis  we  have  the  cry  of  the  barbarian 

destroying  a  civilisation  he  did  not  understand,  and 

expressed  in  the    same   terms  as  the  Celtic   cry  of 

misunderstood   admiration.      Giants,  not  men,  built 

the  cities.     Ruins  of  magnificence  were  the  glorious 

results  of  their  undoing.     The  slaughter  of  warriors 

innumerable  sanctified  the  proceedings,  and  the  whole 

picture   represents    a  wonderment   forced    upon   the 

successful  invader. 

Wonderous  is  this  wall-stone, 

the  fates  have  broken  it, 

have  burst  the  burgh-place. 

Perishes  the  work  of  giants, 

the  roofs  are  fallen, 

the  towers  are  tottering, 

the  hoar  gate- towers  despoird, 

rime  on  the  lime, 

shattered  the  battlements, 

riven,  fallen, 

under  the  Eotnish  race  ; 

the  earth-grave  has 

its  powerful  workmen  ; 

decayed,  departed, 

the  hard  of  gripe  are  fallen, 

to  a  hundred  generations 

of  people  are  pass'd  away. 

Oft  its  walls  withstood 

Raeghar  and  Readfah, 

chieftain  after  other, 

rising  amid  storms. 

^  Stjerna,  Archceologij  of  Beowulf ,  p.  38.     (Ajipendix  IV.) 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT    89 

Rapidly  prone  it  fell ; 
yet  wanes 

drew  the  swift, 

the  bold  of  purpose  in  chains, 

proud  of  spirit  bound 

the  aliens  with  wires, 

wonderously  together. 

Bright  were  the  burgh-dwellings, 

many  its  princely  halls, 

high  its  steepled  splendour, 

there  was  martial  sound  great, 

many  a  mead-hall 

full  of  human  joys, 

until  that  changed 

obdurate  fate : 

they  perish 'd  in  wide  slaughter. 

Came  pernicious  days  ; 

death  destroy 'd  all 

their  renowned  warriors. 

Their  fortress  is  become 

waste  foundations  ; 

their  burgh-place  has  perish'd ; 

atoning  bow'd 

their  bands  to  earth  : 

therefore  these  courts  are  dreary, 

and  its  purple  arch 

with  its  tiles  shades 

the  roost,  proud  of  its  diadem. 

At  its  fall  the  plain  shrank, 

broken  into  mounds. 

There  many  a  chief  of  old, 

joyous  and  gold-bright, 

splendidly  decorated, 

proud  and  with  wine  elate, 

in  warlike  decorations  shone  ; 


90  LONDON 

lookVl  on  treasure,  on  silver, 

on  curious  gems, 

on  luxury,  on  wealth, 

on  precious  stone, 

on  this  bright  burgh 

of  a  broad  realm. 

The  stone  courts  stood — 

the  stream  with  heat  overthrew  them 

with  its  wide  burning; 

the  wall  all  encompassed 

in  its  bright  bosom. 

There  the  baths  were 

hot  on  the  breast : 

that  was  desolating ! 

Let  then  pour 

hot  streams. 


This  is  a  great  poem.  The  brute  force  of  it  seems 
to  beat  against  one's  brain,  the  admiration  and  glory 
of  the  tumultuous  deeds  it  sings  of  seem  to  win  one's 
very  soul.  And  then  somewhere,  an  unknown  some- 
where, perhaps  in  the  halts  between  word  and  word, 
sentence  and  sentence,  somewhere  between  the  rugged 
unevenness  of  each  thought,  there  arises  an  echo  of 
something  otherwise,  something  of  regret,  shame,  at 
the  very  wantonness  of  the  destruction  of  things  so 
colossal,  things  so  expressive  of  man's  great  handiwork, 
not  giant's  work,  after  all,  but  man's.     The  poem  is  a 

'  (axU'x  E.r(»n(')usis,  ]>)).  47()-8,  edited  by  Tliorpe,  whose  transla- 
tion has  been  checked  by  Mr  K.  E.  C.  Gonime  for  the  detailed 
wordinii". 


THE  Sin^VIVAL  OF  THINGS  AXC  IFAT    01 

chapter  of  Anglo-Saxon  history,  and  the  great  fact 
about  it  is  that  it  does  not,  cannot,  belong  to  the 
history  of  London.  Such  a  chapter  of  the  city's 
history  would  have  occupied  the  place  now  occupied 
so  fully  by  Celtic  tradition,  and  would  have  sent  a 
thrill  through  all  succeeding  ages.  The  thrill  never 
comes.  It  is  only  dead  silence— the  silence  of  a 
hundred  years — and  such  a  poem  does  not  come 
from  silence.  That  it  answers  to  no  conditions  that 
are  discoverable  about  liOndon,  to  no  connection 
with  events  which  belong  to  London,  is  proof  positive 
that  the  Saxon  did  not  enter  London  as  Boudicca 
had  entered  it  three  and  a  half  centuries  agone  with 
axe  and  sword  reeking  with  the  blood  of  slaughtered 
Londoners — did  not,  in  fact,  enter  London  at  all  as 
conqueror. 

Unfortunately  the  silence  of  the  Saxon  has  had 
more  influence  upon  historical  inquiry  than  the 
tradition  of  the  Celt.  And  yet  the  silence  if  read 
by  the  light  of  this  poem  tells  the  same  story  as  the 
tradition,  namely,  that  London  was  not  within  the 
sphere  of  Anglo-Saxon  action.  As  no  one  can 
believe  that  this  was  the  deliberate  result  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  policy  in  connection  with  their  conquest  of 
south  Britain,  it  must  have  been  the  result  of 
necessity.  The  necessity  arose  from  London's  de- 
fence of  herself.  London  kept  the  Anglo-Saxon 
outside  in  the  open  country,  and  we  shall  presently 
discuss  not  only  the  evidence  for  it,  but  the  equally 
remarkable  evidence  which  followed  the  recognition 


92  LONDON 

of  London's  position  in  a  scheme  of  national  defence 
when  the  Enghsh  stood  at  bay. 

This,  then,  is  the  situation  we  have  arrived  at  by 
the  voice  of  tradition.  Unconquered  London,  iin- 
destroyed  London,  lived  on  in  Celtic  thought  and 
Celtic  estimation  for  at  least  a  hundred  years.  She 
herself  was  full  of  dismal  anticipation  of  the  in- 
evitable as  well  as  of  great  hopes,  and  always  occupied 
in  keeping  alive  what  had  come  to  her  from  her 
Roman  organisation.  There  is  no  record  of  conquest 
or  destruction,  no  evidence  of  a  general  conflagration. 
There  is  nothing  but  the  mere  surmise  of  desolation 
coming  out  from  the  silence  of  history. 

If  we  consider  this  position  in  relation  to  the  group 
of  Roman  institutions  which  were  kept  alive  during 
this  period,  to  be  used  by  future  generations  of  people 
who  knew  nothing  of  Roman  institutions,  we  shall 
find  that  there  is  no  room  for  such  a  surmise,  no 
room,  indeed,  for  any  other  conclusion  than  the  con- 
tinuity of  London  from  Roman  into  Anglo-Saxon 
history.  If  Roman  London  was  not  conquered  and 
destroyed  it  could  not  have  been  squeezed  into  the 
small  areas  of  Anglo-Saxon  polity.  It  is  an  absolute 
impossibility  from  the  institutional  side. 

The  continuity  of  Roman  London  is  expressed  by 
survivals  both  of  a  material  and  a  constitutional  kind. 

There  is  no  inherent  improbability  in  the  buildings 
of  a  Roman  city  remaining  intact  through  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  dominance  where  tliere  was  no  definite  destruc- 
tion as  at  Anderida  and  Silchester.     Thus  Giraldus 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCH^^NT    93 

Cambrensis  describes  the  remains  of  Caerleon  which 
were  existing  in  his  days,  the  twelfth  century ; 
immense  palaces,  towers  of  prodigious  size,  remark- 
able hot  baths,  relics  of  temples  and  theatres,  all 
enclosed  within  fine  walls,  parts  of  which  remain 
standing,  aqueducts  and  stoves  to  transmit  the  heat. 
Something  parallel  to  this  may  well  have  been  the  con- 
dition of  London,  and  I  have  urged  in  a  former  work  ^ 
that  Alfred  looked  upon  many  a  Roman  building,  as 
well  as  Roman  walls  and  defences,  when  he  took  count 
of  London  in  his  plan  of  defence  against  the  Danes. 
This  position  is  supported  by  evidence  which  extends 
to  modern  days  in  spite  of  ceaseless  and  wanton 
destruction  and  neglect.^ 

Of  material  remains,  situated  in  the  very  heart  of 
London,  the  most  striking  is  the  complete  plan  of 
a  Roman  building  that  has  been  discovered  under 
Leadenhall  market.  This  is  described  as  of  con- 
siderable extent,  with  the  foundation  of  an  apse 
thirty-five  feet  wide,  and  it  appears  to  have  had 
the  form  of  a  basilica  in  some  respects,  with  an  apse 
at  each  end,  western  nave,  and  two  chambers,  like 
transepts,  on  the  south  side.  Many  of  the  walls  still 
remain  buried  under  the  market,  and  some  of  them 
have   been   opened  up  on  more  than  one  occasion.^ 

^    The  Ma/iing  of  London,  p.  81. 

-  Roach  Siiiith,  Illustrations  of  Roman  London,  pp.  2-7,  quotes 
some  pertiiK'iit  examples  of  niodcrn  destruction  of  Roman  London. 

^  Archcvologia,  vol.  xlviii.  p.  245  ;  Victoria  Hist,  of  London,  pp.  74, 
107  ;  lUuslratcd  Topographical  Record  of  London  (Lond.  Toj).  Soc), 
{).  1  contains  an  illustration  showing  "some  arches  of  Roman  work." 


94  LONDON 

It  has  been  suggested  that  these  undoubted  remains 
of  a  public  building  belong  to  the  Roman  forum.  If 
this  conclusion  is  correct,  and  there  seems  no  reason- 
able doubt  about  it,  the  continuity  between  Roman 
London  and  the  London  even  of  to-day  is  expressed 
in  the  quite  remarkable  fact  that  the  site  upon  which 
these  remains  stand  has  always  been  public  property,^ 
always  the  property  of  the  community  and  never  of  a 
private  owner,^  always  belonging  to  London,  whether 
urbs,  civitas,  burgh,  city — whether  Roman,  Saxon, 
Norman,  or  English.  A  fact  of  this  kind  is  complete 
in  all  its  aspects,  and  history  cannot  produce  from  its 
archives  any  record  more  telling.  The  Saxon  name, 
Leadenhall,  is  a  translation  or  adaptation  from  the 
Latin,  not  a  free  gift  from  the  English  tongue,  and 
when  the  complete  lists  of  Saxon  words  in  use  as 
translations  from  the  I>atin  have  been  fully  examined 
by  philologists,  Leadenhall  will  find  a  not  unimpor- 
tant place.  It  is  evident  that  it  signifies  to  the 
Saxon  mind  much  more  than  a  Saxon  building,  a 
building,  therefore,  which  must  have  been  standing 
during  the  period  of  Saxon  dominance,  and  inherited, 
with  its  characteristic  lead  construction,  from  Roman 
London.  Of  churches  built  on  Roman  sites  London 
possesses    many  examples,^   in   common   with   other 

1  "  Occupied  upon  a  common  ground  "  is  Stow's  phrase.  Kings- 
ford  edition,  vol.  i.  p.  1 56. 

-  Thus  the  remarkable  petition  of  the  citizens  in  1.51})  quoted  by 
Stow  (Kingsford  edition),  vol.  i.  pp.  1 ,57-9,  protests  against  "the 
great  place  called  the  Leaden  Hall"  being  "  letten  to  farme  to 
any  person  or  persons."  ^  See  my  Making  oj'  London,  p.  93. 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT    1)5 

parts  of  Britain.  The  fact  is  important  in  many 
ways.  A  more  complete  survival  of  lloman  build- 
ing is  the  square  tower  which  is  represented  in  the 
Aggas  map  between  Bishopsgate  and  Aldgate,  and 
remained  nearly  intact  until  1763,  when,  fortunately, 
a  drawing  of  it  was  made  by  Gough.^  It  shows  the 
courses  of  stones  and  tiles,  and  is  compared  by 
Roach  Smith  with  the  towers  at  Richborough,  which 
were  built  solid  at  the  bottom,  hollow  in  the  centre, 
and  united  to  the  main  wall  again  at  the  top,  the 
cavity  being  probably  intended  for  a  small  room  pro- 
vided with  loopholes  for  the  watchers.  This  interest- 
ing survival  from  Roman  times  was  used  as  a  chamber, 
and  a  window  occupied  the  place  of  a  loophole. 

The  most  picturesque  of  the  constitutional  sur- 
vivals is  the  jurisdictional  terminus  at  JNlile  End.- 
Colchester  and  London  both  possess  this  feature  of  a 
Roman  city,  and  in  spite  of  objections  to  such  a  con- 
clusion, the  fact  that  Mile  End  is  a  military  centre 
and  a  criminal  centre  at  the  earliest  times  recorded 
by  history  is  sufficient  to  prove  the  same  facts  for  the 
period  before  the  records  of  history.  The  point  is 
perfectly  plain.  These  two  characteristics  are  in  ex- 
istence when  history  begins.  They  have  only  one 
parallel  in  the  prehistory  period,  and  this  parallel 
belongs  to  Roman  institutions.  History  does  not 
give  them  a   beginning,  only  a  record  of  existence. 

^  Thisdrawiuij;  was  copied  by  Fairholt,  and  is  used  in  C.  R.  Smith's 
Illuslrations  of  Roman  London,  p.  l6.     It  is  reproduced  ante,  pp.  t6,  47. 
2  See  my  Governance  of  London,  pj).  104-6,  for  the  details. 


96  LONDON 

There  is  nothing,  therefore,  between  them  and  the 
Roman  institution  of  which  they  are  survivals. 
This  is  explained  in  detail  in  my  Govcrna7ice  of 
London,  but,  since  writing  that,  further  evidence 
from  comparative  sources  is  forthcoming  in  support 
of  my  interpretation  of  this  significant  place-name  and 
its  association,  namely,  the  existence  of  a  jurisdictional 
boundary  in  other  Roman  cities  in  Britain.  The  most 
important  example  is  at  Silchester.  This  boundary 
is  one  mile  distant  from  the  Roman  walls  and 
follows  precisely  the  peculiar  irregularity  of  the 
city,  proceeding  over  level  or  higher  ground  with- 
out reference  to  geographical  or  natural  considera- 
tions. This  boundary  is  to  this  day  the  dividing  line 
between  the  Silchester  manors  and  outside  manors.^ 
One  cannot  ignore  comparative  evidence  of  this  kind. 
If  it  is  conceded  for  Silchester's  unnamed  boundary, 
it  must  be  conceded  for  London's  Mile  End,  which 
is  not  only  a  place-name  but  a  military  and  criminal 
jurisdictional  boundary  in  relation  to  London.  It  is 
the  first  step  in  the  tracing  out  of  the  continuity  of 
London  as  a  city  in  arms,  and  the  first  step  arises  in 
Roman  London. 

1  I  am  indebted  to  Mr  J.  B.  Karslake  for  this  valuable  discovery 
not  elsewhere  noted.  Mr  Karslake  added  to  the  value  of  his  infor- 
mation by  driving  me  round  the  outside  boundary  and  giving  me 
this  oj)])ortunity  of  studying  it  in  the  field  as  well  as  on  the  maj). 
I  should  like  to  refer  to  a  parallel  line  of  research  in  Roman  city 
remains,  and  Dr  Frothingham's  interesting  account  of  the  discovery 
of  colony  arches  at  Verona  affords  me  the  opportunity,  Roman  Cities 
in  Norlkcrii  Italy  and  Dalmatia,  p.  251. 


THE  SURVIV^AL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT    !)7 

III  connection  with  this  there  is  another  important 
fact.  The  army  that  went  forth  to  meet  Henfi'ist 
and  ^'I^]sc  at  Crayford  Hed  to  London  on  being  de- 
feated, and  I  have  argued  that  tlie  army  thus  sheltered 
was  the  citizen  army  of  the  Londoners,  which  fought 
jit  Crayford  because  it  was  the  Hmit  of  the  city 
territorium  to  the  south-east.  A  small  point  affords 
a  useful  fact  which  tells  for  confirmation  of  this 
view.  The  British  force  which  fought  at  Aylesford 
in  455  is  stated  to  have  been  commanded  by  the 
British  king,  ^^ortigern.  The  commander  at  Cray- 
ford, two  years  later,  is  unnamed.  There  is  surely 
a  reason  for  this  difference  of  historical  treatment, 
and  I  think  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  ftict  that  it  was 
the  chief  citizen  who,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  led  the 
London  army  against  the  foe  at  London's  boundary.^ 

On  the  same  line  of  argument,  the  institution  of 
the  pomerium  is  alone  able  to  account  for  the  belt 
of  city  jurisdiction  and  possession  which  gives  it 
wards  without  the  walls  as  well  as  wards  within 
the  walls.  These  extra  mural  wards  show  that  the 
wall  of  the  city  is  not  the  boundary  of  the  city.  The 
real  boundary  is  jurisdictional  not  physical — that 
boundary  beyond  the  wall  which  separates  the  custom 
of  the  city  from  that  beyond  the  boundary,  which 
differentiates  the  land  tenure  and  the  succession  laws 
of  the  city  from  those  of  the  surrounding  country, 
which  places  the  citizen  within  the  jurisdictional 
boundary  in  a  position  which  though  constitutionally 

^  See  my  Guicniance  of  London,  pp.  97-8. 


98  LONDON 

advantageous  is  controlled  by  the  city  government. 
Protected  by  no  physical  methods,  such  a  boundary 
has  been  preserved  throughout  the  ages  by  the  pure 
force  of  its  jurisdictional  value.  Later  events  prove 
this,  for  when  the  Danes  first  settled  in  London,  as  it 
is  stated  in  the  Chronicles,  their  settlement  was  not 
within  the  walls.  If  it  was  within  the  pomerium 
they  were  entitled  to  say  it  was  within  London.  It 
was  their  London,  and  this  is  Avhat  I  think  explains 
the  many  conflicting  accounts  of  these  events.  It  is 
confirmed  by  a  curious  feature  in  the  boundaries  of 
Westminster  on  its  city  side.  There  was  an  unex- 
plained stretch  of  territory  not  included  in  either  the 
city  or  in  Westminster,  and  which  contains  evidence 
of  Danish  influence.^  If  this  stretch  of  territory  ad- 
joining the  boundary  of  the  city  and  not  within  the 
boundary  of  Westminster  was  part  of  the  London 
pomerium  in  which  the  Danes  settled,  it  would  afford 
the  only  reasonable  explanation  of  all  the  complicated 
facts  of  recorded  history.  Another  piece  of  the 
pomerium  may  perhaps  be  traced  at  Finsbury,  where 
the  city  has  possessed  rights  the  origin  of  which  is  lost 
in  history.  Similarly,  I  believe  that  the  maps  of 
London  when  they  are  sufficiently  examined  will 
supply  further  traces  of  jurisdictional  boundary  out- 
side the  walls  which  can  best  be  explained  on  the 
theory  I  have  advanced. 

The  same  argument  also  applies,  only  with  more 
certain  evidence,  to  the  institution  of  the  territorium. 

^  See  imy  Governance  of  London,  pp.  191-5. 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT    99 

London  frequently  appears  in  chronicle  and  city 
records  as  a  city  with  "  lands  which  belonged  there- 
to," to  adopt  the  words  of  the  Anglo-Scuvou  Chronicle, 
history  thus  recording  the  bare  fact  but  not  the 
origin.  It  is  this  kind  of  record  which  compels  a 
glance  at  the  prehistory  period,  and  there  London's 
great  church  of  St  Paul's  is  found  to  possess  exten- 
sive lands  all  round  the  city,  to  be,  in  fact,  as  Hale 
expressed  it  in  his  Domesdaij  of  St  PaiiPs,  "  a  corpora- 
tion possessed  of  manors  and  churches,  and  having 
to  fulfil  to  their  tenants  the  same  duties,  and  receive 
from  them  the  same  services,  as  other  lords  of 
manors."  The  position  of  the  Cathedral  manors  is 
important  in  relation  to  London.  Nine  of  them 
are  at  Willesden,  while  thirteen  others — Pancras, 
Rugmere,  Totenhall,  Kentish  Town,  Islington, 
Newington,  Holborn,  Poripool,  Finsbury,  Hoxton, 
Wenlock's  Barn,  Mora,  and  Eald  Street — are  found 
to  occupy  a  belt  of  land  of  no  inconsiderable  breadth 
from  the  walls  of  the  city  of  London  towards  the 
north.  The  church  in  this  case,  as  at  AVinchester, 
Carlisle,  and  other  cities,  became  in  part  the  political 
successor  of  the  Roman  city,  and  gifts  by  will 
bestowed  "  within  London  and  without  London " 
expresses  the  significance  of  the  situation.^  JNIr  Reid 
points  out  that  this  same  kind  of  evidence  is  used 
"  in  determining  the  limits  of  municipal  territoria 
in  ancient  Italy  as  in  other  parts  of  the  Roman 
Empire,"  and  adds  that  "  in  the  latest  imperial  age 

^  Thorpe,  Diploniatarium  Angliciun,  p.  514. 


100  LONDON 

the  bishops  acquired  supremacy  in  most  of  the 
municipaUties,  and  the  limits  of  their  dioceses  corre- 
sponded very  generally  with  those  of  the  old  civic 
territorial'^  The  church  did  not,  however,  absorb 
all  that  was  left  of  the  institution  of  the  territorium. 
The  city  retained  territorium  rights,  though  not 
territorium  possession.  She  had  sherifan  jurisdiction 
over  the  whole  of  Middlesex,  and,  as  Mr  Round  puts 
it,  "  Middlesex  was  never  separate  from  London." " 
She  had  rights  of  chase  confirmed  to  her  citizens 
by  Henry  I.  "as  well  and  fully  as  their  ancestors 
have  had."  She  held  "  the  moor  of  London  "  as  her 
own  property,  and  the  title  used  accidentally  in 
the  records^  is  not  without  its  significance.  "The 
whole  water  of  Thames  belongs  to  the  city  from 
shore  to  shore  as  far  as  the  Newe  Weare."*  Rights 
at  Staines,  rights  at  Richmond,  rights  at  Crayford, 
rights  all  round  the  walled  city,  which  can  be 
accounted  for  only  as  survivals  from  the  Roman 
institution  of  the  territorium,  appear  at  the  beginning 
of  recorded  history  as  already  ancient.  I  agree  with 
Mr  Lethaby  that  the  theory  which  best  fits  the  facts 
as  to  the  origin  of  Middlesex  is  not  the  creation  of 

1  J.  S.  lleid,  The  Mtmicipa/i/ies  of  the  Roman  Empire,  \^\^.  143,  451  ; 
and  see  my  Governance  of  London,  pp.  106,  223. 

-   Round,  Geoffrey  of  MaudevUle,  p.  347  el  seq. 

3  Riley's  Me?norials,  p.  374 ;  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  ix.  p.  S,  notes  a 
'Tant  in  1288  of  land  in  "la  more,"  and  in  131.5  a  release  was 
•riven  by  the  Prebendary  of  Finsbury  of  all  his  claim  in  "la  mora  de 
Haliwell  et  de  P'inesbiri." 

■*  Cronica  maioruvi  et  vicecomitinn  Lonctonitirirm  (Camden  Soc.),  pp. 
40,  62.      New  Wear  was  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Yantlet  Creek. 


THE  SURVIVxVL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT  101 

a  Middle  Saxon  folk,  with  full  tribal  organisation, 
capable  of  stamping  itself  upon  English  soil,  but 
the  deduction  to  be  drawn  from  all  late  evidence 
— the  evidence  of  medijuval  as  of  Anglo-Saxon 
records — that  Middlesex  was  in  fact  "the  cuntre  of 
London,"  as  it  is  called  by  Capgrave^  in  his  descrip- 
tion of  the  western  boundary  of  Essex. ^  This  ex- 
pression exactly  fits  the  position.  The  city  and  the 
church  divided  between  them  the  possession  and  the 
rights  over  Middlesex.  Possession  and  rights  are 
inheritances  from  some  previous  conditions,  not 
grants  from  powerful  sovereign,  not  forceful  acquisi- 
tions in  time  of  anarchy,  but  simply  inheritance. 
And  the  only  source  of  this  inheritance  possible  is 
the  Roman  institution  of  the  territorium. 

The  early  commercial  greatness  of  Roman  London 
— there  is  no  evidence  of  anything  earlier — is 
always  admitted.  The  continuation  of  this  great- 
ness is  seen  from  the  historical  records.  It  is  Roman 
law,  surviving  to  the  Middle  Ages  almost  unaltered 
in  practice,  though  never  appearing  as  a  formulary, 
which  made  this  commerce  possible.  When  Henry  L 
framed  his  great  charter  to  London,  he  granted  the 
right  of  I^ondon  to  tax  other  toAvns  as  other  towns 
taxed  London.  This  was  simply  confirming  a  right 
already  possessed  of  forming  commercial  alliances 
with  other  cities,  a  right  which  is  a  direct  sur\  i\'al 
of  the  system  adopted  in  Roman  towns. 

'  London  before  the  Contfuest,  p.  I'J'j. 

-  Capgrave,  Chroniele  oj  England  (Rolls  edition),  p.  100. 


102  LONDON 

Again,  in  the  matter  of  succession  to  land.  All 
round  I^ondon,  right  up  to  the  outer  ward  boundaries 
of  the  city,  the  manor  is  the  land  unit.  Inside  the 
city  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  manor.  The  sokes 
aimed  at  manorial  jurisdiction  without  the  manorial 
organisation,  but  they  nev^er  became  manors,  never 
lived,  to  quote  INIr  Maitland's  expressive  definition 
of  the  manor,  as  "  a  single  group  of  tenants  who 
worked  in  common  at  their  ploughings  and  their 
reapings."^  In  the  extra  London  manors  the  succes- 
sion to  land  was  for  the  most  part  by  junior  right  or 
gavelkind.  Inside  the  city,  succession  to  land  was 
by  a  formal  custom  which  had  for  its  object  the 
settlement  of  the  legal  rights  of  wife  and  children 
to  shares  in  the  property  of  the  husband  and  father. - 
This  custom  was  a  restriction  upon  individual  rights 
of  the  citizen,  and  as  such  is  clearly  traceable  to  the 
Roman  codes.^  Here  the  doctrine  of  survival  is 
emphasised  by  the  contrast  which  is  drawn  at  the 
city  boundary  between  city  and  extra  city  land- 
systems. 

These    conclusions    are    forced    upon    us    by   the 

^  Select  Pleas  of  Manor  Rolls,  j).  xl.  Norden's  dt-finition  is 
equally  expi'essive  :  "  Is  not  every  manor  u  little  conimonwealtli 
whereof  the  tenants  are  the  members,  the  land  the  bulke,  and  the 
lord  the  head?  "  QSurvei/or's  Dialogue,  l()()7,  p.  28). 

2  I  have  given  examples  in  my  (joveniance  of  London,  p.  139- 
•'  Justinian,  lib.  ii.  tit.  xviii.,  is  the  basis  of  this  comj)arison 
between  Itoman  and  London  law.  Cf.  Ulpian,  lib.  iii.  1-17,  and 
Cod.  Theod.,  ii.  If),  4-.  The  modification  in  the  London  law  of  the 
exact  j)r()visions  of  the  Roman  law  does  not  seem  to  me  to  affect 
the  question  of  origins  after  reading  the  opening  words  of  Justinian. 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT  103 

lawyer  rather  than  by  the  historian,  and  the  hiwyer 
seeks  liis  origins  in  tlie  reahns  of*  apphcd  logic  ratlier 
than    in  the  less    fruitful    regions  of  recorded    fact. 
Tims  in  discussing  the  doctrine  of  rationabiUs  pars, 
which  is  the  Jc^itimd  portio  of  the  Theodosian  code 
(ii.    19,    4),    Mr    Spence   says:    "In   some    parts    of 
England,   particularly  in   Kent,  in   London,   and   in 
Vork,  it  appears  to  have  continued  in  uninterrupted 
succession  from  the  time  when  Britain  was  a  Roman 
province.     It  was  afterwards  extended  so  as  to  become 
the  general  if  not  universal  law  of  England."^     And 
he  also  points  out  the  extremely  important  fact  in 
this  connection,  that  "  it  is  still  usual   for  the  city 
of  London  to  plead  its  franchises,  confirmed  as  they 
ha\e  been  by  parliament,  not  as  royal  grants  or  as 
deriving  their  force  from  legislative  sanction,  but  as 
customs  existing  from  time  immemorial."     Through 
the   medium    of   its    local    tribunals,    many   ancient 
customs    which    were  at    variance  with  the   general 
law,  such  as  the  allodial  right  of  devising  lands,  the 
claims  of  the  wife  and   children   upon  the  personal 
estate  of  their  parent  under  the  name  of  pars  ration- 
abi/is  ("  the  remains  of  the  old  common  law,"  Kemp  v. 
Kelsey,  Prec.  /;/  C//.,  p.  59G),  and  the  right  of  appoint- 
ing guardians  to  orphans  by  the  magistrates  of  the 
city  (4   Inst.  248),  "  were  kept  up  in  London  long 
after  the  conquest.     Indeed,  the  custom  of  London 
as  to  the  ratiotiabilis  pars  of  the  personal  estate  of 

^   Spenct",    K(jint(tbU'  Jurisdiction   of  the   Court   of  ('/iance?-i/,   \o\.   i. 
p.  188. 


104  LONDON 

a  citizen  dying  intestate,  and  some  other  of  these 
customs,  remain  in  force  in  part  at  least  at  the 
present  day."^ 

London  in  this  respect  was  doing  nothing  strange. 
She  only  followed  the  general  practice  which  arose 
out  of  the  final  break-up  of  Roman  power.  Mr 
Story,  in  his  work  on  the  Conflict  of  Laws,  puts 
the  point  in  the  following  manner :  "  When  the 
northern  nations,  by  their  irruptions,  finally  succeeded 
in  establishing  themselves  in  the  Roman  Empire  and 
the  dependent  nations  subjected  to  its  sway,  they  seem 
to  have  adopted,  either  by  design  or  from  accident  or 
necessity,  the  policy  of  allowing  the  different  races  to 
live  together,  and  to  be  governed  by  and  to  preserve 
their  own  separate  manners,  laws,  and  institutions  in 
their  mutual  intercourse.  While  the  conquerors,  the 
Goths,  Burgundians,  Franks,  and  I^om bards,  main- 
tained their  own  laws  and  usages  and  customs  over 
their  own  race,  they  silently  or  expressly  allowed  each 
of  the  races  over  whom  they  had  obtained  an  absolute 
sovereignty  to  regulate  their  own  private  rights 
and  affairs  according  to  their  own  municipal  juris- 
prudence. It  has  accordingly  been  remarked,  by  a 
most  learned  and  eminent  jurist,  that  from  this  state 
of  society  arose  that  condition  of  civil  rights,  denomi- 
nated pe?^so7ial  rights  or  personal  laws,  in  opposition 
to  territorial  laws."  The  eminent  jurist  here  referred 
to  is  Savigny,  who,  in  his  History  of  the  Roman  Laxv 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  speaking  of  the  state  of  things 

1  Spence,  Com^t  of  Chancery,  vol.  i.  p.  97  ;  Pulling,  Customs,  p.  6. 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT  105 

which  existed  between  the  conquering  Goths,  Bur- 
gundians,  Franks,  and  Lombards,  and  the  races  con- 
quered by  them,  says  :  "  Both  races  lived  together, 
and  preserved  their  separate  manners  and  laws.  From 
this  state  of  society  arose  that  condition  of  civil  rights, 
denominated  personal  lights  or  persojial  laws,  in 
opposition  to  territorial  laivs.  ...  In  the  same 
country,  and  often  indeed  in  the  same  city,  the 
Lombard  lived  under  the  Lombardic,  and  the 
Roman  under  the  Roman  law.  The  same  distinc- 
tion of  laws  was  also  applicable  to  the  different 
races  of  Germans.  The  Frank,  Burgundian,  and 
Goth  resided  in  the  same  place,  each  under  his 
own  law,  as  is  forcibly  stated  by  the  Bishop 
Agobardus  in  an  epistle  to  Louis  le  Debonnaire. 
'  It  often  happens, '  says  he,  '  that  five  men,  each 
under  a  different  law,  may  be  found  walking  or 
sitting  together.'"^ 

These  are  the  outward  signs  of  the  survival  of  a 
Roman  city  constitution.  They  are  supplemented 
by  the  far  more  remarkable  survivals  of  city  govern- 
ance and  of  city-state  conditions.  The  evidence  of 
Roman  continuity  of  city  governance  is  contained  in 
the  antagonism  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  to  a  power  greater 
than  he  was,  a  power  which  he  had  to  fight  when 
he  entered  London,  and  which  he  never  conquered. 
This  power  was  on  the  side  of  law  and  order,  on  the 

^  Coote's  argument  for  these  same  conditions  in  London  (Romans 
of  Britain,  pp.  292-3)  is  ingenious  and  very  tempting,  but  it 
depends  upon  the  correctness  of  the  equation,  Wyliscean  =  Roman. 


106  LONDON 

side  of  an  autocratic  governing  authority,  on  the  side 
of  a  successful  administration,  and  the  Anglo-Saxon 
finds  himself  up  against  all  this.  The  next  chapter 
will  contain  the  evidence  for  it. 

The  evidence  of  the  survival  of  Roman  city-state 
conditions  cannot  he  contained  in  a  single  chapter. 
It  comes  into  every  phase,  every  period,  of  London 
history,  and  is  contained  in  the  quite  remarkable 
constitutional  relationship  v^hich  London  has  with 
the  national  sovereign  power — not  the  relationship  of 
an  overbearing  revolutionary  capital  city  during  a 
period  of  revolution  in  the  nation,  but  the  relationship 
of  a  quiet,  determined  exercise  of  influence  and  action, 
always  of  the  same  kind,  always  tending  to  the  same 
purpose,  always  having  the  same  effect,  always 
exercised  by  an  organised  city  community.  The 
working  out  of  this  survival  is  difficult  until  the  key 
to  the  problem  is  supplied,  and  then  the  position 
becomes  clear  enough.  It  would  have  been  satis- 
factory without  the  whole  of  the  evidence  which  is 
happily  forthcoming.  With  that  evidence  complete 
at  so  many  stages,  coming  back  through  the  ages  in 
terms  of  an  almost  traditional  formula,  sanctioned  by 
continuous  usage,  there  is  no  room  to  doubt  of 
London's  exercise  of  city-state  powers,  and  there  is 
no  room  to  doubt  that  they  were  directly  inherited 
from  Roman  I^ondon  and  applied  by  the  city 
successors — English,  Norman,  modern,  successors  of 
the  Romans  of  London.  If  London  does  not,  during 
the  decay  of  the  Empire,  assume  a  position  such  as 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT  107 

Nimes,  Aries,  and  Trier  were  Jillowed — the  position, 
that  is,  of  city-state  in  the  Empire,  parallel  to  liome 
itself — it  is  certain  that  it  carved  out  of  its  l^oman 
origin  a  position  for  itself  in  the  outer  world  of 
Britain,  a  position  not  altogether  unlike  that  of  its 
sister  cities  on  the  Continent,  though  belonging  to  a 
lesser  sphere  of  operation.  The  position  of  the  great 
French  and  Italian  cities  in  relation  to  national 
politics  has  not  been  worked  out.  When  this  is  done 
it  will  be  found  that  the  independence  of  London  in 
Anglo-Saxon  times,  and  the  survivals  of  this  inde- 
pendence which  brought  about  its  struggle  against 
the  mighty  powers  of  English  Plantagenet  sover- 
eignty, were  of  the  same  general  kind,  and  proceeded 
from  the  same  source,  namely,  the  political  system 
of  the  Roman  Empire.^  A  parallel  of  this  kind  is 
worth  much  to  the  student  of  London,  l^ondon  was 
differently  placed,  because  it  was  not  free  from  the 
external  sovereign.  But  it  was  struggling  against 
this  soxereignty  on  precisely  the  same  lines  as  the 
Italian  cities  were  exercising  their  independent 
powers,  and  because  I^ondon  was  struggling  and 
they  were  free  we  must  not  imagine  a  fundamental 
difference  in  the  position  of  the  English  city  and  the 
cities  of  the  Continent.  The  common  origin  from 
which  that  position  was  derived  is  the  connecting 
link  between  them  both. 

We  shall  see  in  succeeding  chapters  how  the  more 

•   On  tliis  point  it  is  worth  while  consultino;  Gibbon,  Decline  and 
Fall  (Bury),  vol.  v.  pp.  302-3. 


108  LONDON 

important  survivals  are  indeed  much  more  than 
survivals.  They  are  continuations  during  successive 
ages  of  history.  Each  generation  of  liOndon  citizen- 
ship used  them  as  the  position  of  affairs  demanded. 
They  therefore  never  retained  their  purely  external 
Roman  character.  They  were  Englished  or  Nor- 
manised  or  mediaevalised  or  modernised  as  demands 
upon  them  were  renewed  again  and  again.  It  is 
all  to  the  good,  therefore,  that  we  find  them  in 
altered  form  as  survivals.  They  are  survivals  plus 
continuations,  and  the  remarkable  thing  is  that  they 
retain  enough  of  their  original  form  for  the  inquirer 
of  to-day  to  be  able  to  identify  their  internal 
character  as  survivals.  We  have  by  their  aid 
established  the  principle  of  continuity  in  the  life 
of  LiOndon,  and  we  have  to  ascertain  whether  that 
principle  remains  in  active  operation  throughout  the 
later  periods  —  whether  Roman  London  sent  its 
tendrils  forward  to  grip  first  the  local,  then  the 
national,  and  finally  the  imperial  character  of  the 
English  city.  At  no  time  has  London  been  ready 
to  assume  an  expansion  into  empire  greatness,  but 
at  all  times  has  she  stood  out  for  state  influence. 
Her  influence  on  the  state  is  the  parallel,  the 
microscopic  parallel,  she  obtained  from  her  Roman 
beginnings,  and  we  shall  find  that  it  lasts  right 
through  the  course  of  her  history. 

If  London  ceased  to  participate  in  "  the  glory 
that  was  Rome"  it  helped  largely  to  establish  the 
greatness  that   is    Britain,    and    one   would    not  too 


THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THINGS  ANCIENT  109 

closely  compare  the  relative  merits  of  the  two 
positions.  What  we  have  to  do  now  is  to  go 
forward  with  the  evidence,  the  evidence  of  survivals 
and  of  continuity  which  have  established  in  our 
midst  not  merely  a  great  city,  but  a  great  city- 
institution. 


CHAPTER    V 

ENGLISH     INCOMINGS 

The  date  or  period  of  the  English  entry  into  London 
is  not  known,  and  cannot  be  known.  There  is  no 
history  of  it,  no  mention  of  it  in  Anglo-Saxon  history. 
They  certainly  did  not  enter  it  tumultuously  or  at  a 
rush.  They  appear  there  w^ithout  any  prefatory  action, 
and  Beda's  casual  allusion  to  "a  certain  Frisian  in 
liOndon,"  Lundoniam  Freso  cuidam,^  in  a.d.  679, 
does  not  lend  colour  to  a  general  English  occupation. 
I  have  expressed  the  opinion  in  a  former  work  that 
they  overflowed  into  it,  as  it  were,  and  did  not  even 
deliberately  enter  and  attempt  to  take  it  over  into 
their  polity.  This  opinion  is  confirmed  by  all  the 
evidence  I  have  learned  since.  When  we  are  able 
to  catch  a  glimpse  of  the  doings  of  the  English  in 
London  we  find  them  there  vigorously  unsuccessful. 
They  attempt  to  dominate  London  with  English 
ideas  of  rule  and  governance,  and  are  not  only 
vigorously  unsuccessful  in  this  main  object,  but  they 
lay  bare  the  sources  of  their  unsuccess  in  the  looseness 
of  the  tribal  institutions  which  they  w^ould  substitute 
for  the  ancient  civic  organisation.     The  roughness  of 

^   Lib.  iv.  cap.  xxii. 
110 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  HI 

their  attempt  in  this  direction  Hes  heavily  on  the 
institutional  life  of  London,  but  the  skill,  triumphant 
in  its  delicacy,  of  those  who  opposed  the  drastic 
operation  also  reveals  itself.  The  interest  of  this 
particular  point  is  extraordinarily  great.  It  answers 
not  only  an  important  problem  in  the  life  of  early 
London,  but  it  illustrates  in  a  peculiar  way  the 
characteristic  of  English  governing  power,  wherever 
and  whenever  it  has  been  exercised.  This  power 
proceeded  from  the  new  conception  of  lordship  which 
followed  upon  the  Teutonic  eruption  on  Roman 
government.  The  note  of  the  new  system  was  lord- 
ship, with  its  accompanying  vassalage  and  personal 
ties.  Everywhere  do  we  see  this  development.  We 
need  not  pause  at  the  variations  between  the  different 
degrees  of  lordship,  the  series  always  ending  in  the 
unquestioned  lordship  of  the  king ;  we  may  perhaps 
note  the  special  characteristics  of  the  bencjicium,  its 
derivation,  according  to  the  best  authorities,  from 
the  ecclesiastical  tenure  of  the  precariiun  when 
church  lands  were  seized  ;  but  the  one  dominant  note 
is  that  of  lordship  and  vassalage  taking  the  place  of 
state  government  on  the  imperial  basis  of  Rome. 

London  in  due  course  came  under  the  influence  of 
this  new  element  of  lordship,  and  the  moment  when 
a  great  statesman,  who  was  also  great  soldier  and 
great  king,  great  scholar  and  great  man — Alfred  the 
Great  of  England — deliberately  entered  London  with 
the  settled  purpose  of  bringing  it  into  Anglo-Saxon 
polity,  that  moment  in  the  year  898  when  he  surveyed 


112  LONDON 

London,  recognised  its  strategical  importance,  and 
determined  to  use  it  in  the  struggle  against  the 
Danes,  marks  unmistakably  the  one  great  epocli  in 
the  history  of  London  which  made  it  English  London 
as  well  as  Roman  Londinium.  From  this  date 
London  was  always  prominent  in  the  struggle  of  the 
English  against  their  enemies.  She  took  her  share 
right  gloriously,  standing  by  Eadward,  Athelstan, 
Eadmund,  as  Alfred  would  have  had  her  stand  if  he 
could  have  commanded  her  in  this  respect.  She  then 
at  last  owned  as  of  right  her  new  name  of  London- 
byrig  and  entered  the  English  political  system.  The 
significance  of  King  Alfred's  action,  however,  is  not 
in  what  followed  his  acceptance  of  London's  position, 
as  in  the  circumstances  which  surrounded  this  unique 
transaction.  The  king  evidently  goes  to  London  as 
to  a  strange  city — surveys  it,  takes  stock  of  it,  gauges 
its  strategical  and  other  importance  ;  and  only  after 
these  extensive  and  singularly  formal  acts,  carried 
through  not  in  the  city  itself,  but  outside  the  city 
at  Chelsea  in  solemn  conference,  is  it  agreed  to 
strengthen  and  adapt  liOndon  for  the  fight.  This 
conference  follows  the  precedent  set  throughout 
Anglo-Saxon  history.  All  Anglo-Saxon  institutions 
were  outside  the  city.  Kings  were  crowned  at 
Kingston,  not  in  London.  They  were  anointed  at 
Westminster.  The  assembled  witan  met  not  under 
cover  of  a  great  hall  in  the  city  but  sub  dio  in  the 
open  country,  and  on  the  few  occasions  when  the 
gathering  was  in  London  it  was  held  principally  for 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  113 

church  not  state  purposes.     It  met  at    Celchy?;  fre- 
quently. 

There  is  no  record  hke  this  in  all  English  history. 
It  is  as  accidental  as  it  well  could  be.  It  is  not 
derived  from  the  Anglo-Saocon  Ch'onicle,  from  Asser's 
Life,  or  from  any  chronicle  record,  but  is  simply  the 
introductory  sentence  to  a  charter,  a.d.  898,  granting 
lands  at  "  Retheres  Hide,"  near  London,  to  the  See 
of  Worcester.  "  Contigit  con  venire  in  loco  qui 
dicitur  Celchys  Alfredum  regem,  Plegmundum 
archiepiscopum,  nee  non  ^deredum  ducem  partis 
regionis  Merciorum  et  ^Ethilflredum  sororem  regis 
cosque  conloquium  habuisse  de  instauracione  urbis 
Lundonie."  ^  Whatever  the  exact  meaning  of  "  in- 
stauracione "  may  be,  it  does  not  mean  rebuilding. 
It  is  a  translation  word  found  in  the  Anglo-Saxon 
glossaries,  and  equates  with  "  change  "  rather  than  any 
other  meaning.  In  any  case,  it  cannot  relate  merely 
to  the  restoration  of  a  devastated  London.  The 
whole  episode  suggests  a  strange,  almost,  one  would 
say,  a  foreign  city,  a  city  that,  at  all  events  up  to 
that  date,  was  not  an  English  city.  London  had  been 
in  the  midst  of  the  Danish  onslaught,  and  on  the 
whole  the  conflicting  records  do  not  tell  for  the 
capture  and  occupation  of  London  by  the  marauders. 
Their  settlement  was  in  London,  not  within  the 
walls  ;  Aldwych  stood  for  them  as  London,  was  in  fact 
their  London.  Alfred's  act  was  most  likely  directed 
to  bringing  up  to  date  defences  that  were  not  so  use 

^  Birch,  Cartularium  Saxo7iicum,  vol.  ii.  No.  577. 


114  LONDON 

ful  as  they  might  be  for  his  purpose  and  his  resources, 
and  the  conference  to  settle  this  had  before  it  another 
and  deeper  problem  as  well  as  the  ostensible  and 
minor  problem.  London  had  already  fouglit  for 
herself  against  the  Danes,  and  had  fought  not  only 
successfully  but  independently.  This  is  quite  clear 
from  the  Anglo-ScuTon  Chronicle.  The  conference 
was  to  settle  whether  London  would  fight  for  the 
English,  and  what  would  be  her  then  position  as  a 
defensive  city  of  the  nation.  This  was  the  real 
problem  before  that  great  conference. 

It  was  solved  right  gloriously.  London  in  fighting 
on  her  own  independent  plan  would  be  at  the  same 
time  fighting  for  all  England.  The  best  evidence 
of  this  result  is  in  the  year  994.  "  Here  in  this 
year  came  Anlaf  and  Swegen  to  London  with 
ninety-four  ships,  and  they  were  fighting  constantly 
against  the  town,  and  tried  also  to  set  fire  to  it ;  but 
there  they  sustained  more  harm  and  evil  than  ever 
they  imagined  any  townsmen  could  do  unto  them."  ^ 
The  same  evidence  is  given  by  Saxo  Grammaticus, 
who,  describing  the  treachery  of  the  Danes  against 
London,  which  they  could  not  capture,  introduces 
us  to  a  London  hero,  Daleman,  killed  by  their 
treachery."  The  state  had  never  defended  London, 
and  here  we  have  I^ondon  defending  the  state  by 
defending  herself.  It  is  the  story  of  an  almost 
independent  city.     The   city  in  arms  as  tiie  city  in 

1  Anglo-Saxon  C/iro/iide,  anno  994-,  trans,  by  E.  E.  C.  (iomnie. 
-  Saxo  Grammalicus,  trans.  I^Llton^  lib.  ii.  cap.  50. 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  115 

peace  had  not  hitherto  been  an  intef^ral  part  of  the 
nation,  and  what  King  Alfred  had  done  with  his 
conference  was  to  bring  home  to  both  nation  and 
city  that  the  old  inde^^endence  nuist  come  to  an 
end  and  be  exercised,  if  exercised  at  all,  on  con- 
stitutional lines. 

London  answered  to  the  call,  and  there  is  therefore 
to  consider  what  were  the  immediate  effects  upon 
her  position  as  a  city  of  the  English.  The  facts 
are  soon  revealed.  That  London  already  possessed 
laws  and  governance  of  her  own  when  the  dawn  of 
recorded  history  thus  breaks  once  more  upon  the 
city  is  certain.  That  there  was  added  to  these  two 
elements  of  city  life  another  and  antagonistic  element 
is  the  new  experience  which  arose  from  these  events. 
There  grew  up  within  the  city  something  besides 
the  more  ancient  laws  and  governance — not  Anglo- 
Saxon  laws,  but  Anglo-Saxon  customs ;  not  Anglo- 
Saxon  governance,  but  Anglo-Saxon  institutions, 
occupying  subordinate  not  dominant  positions. 

These  institutions  have  to  be  considered,  not  from 
their  superficial  side,  their  titles,  and  their  general 
attributes,  but  from  their  actual  position  in  the  city. 
The  folkmoot  held  in  the  open  air  on  a  piece  of  land, 
qui  dicitur  "  folkmoot,"  near  St  Paul's,  and  attended 
by  all  citizens  in  the  primitive  fashion  of  a  primary 
assembly,  is  entirely  xVnglo-Saxon  in  form.  But  it 
possessed  no  powers  of  government.  All  it  possessed 
was  the  power  to  grumble,  to  protest,  to  use  its 
ancient  Teutonic  formula,  "  Aye,  aye  "or  "  Nay,  nay," 


116  LONDON 

as  against  the  pronouncements  of  the  discreet  men 
{probi  homines)  of  the  city.  The  history  of  the  folk- 
moot  of  London  is  one  of  the  most  instructive  chapters 
in  the  reconstruction  of  the  early  period.  It  is  always 
struggling  to  be  dominant,  but  is  never  dominant ; 
it  is  always  trying  to  assume  powers,  and  is  always 
dominated  from  above  by  those  terribly  discreet  men 
of  the  city  who  continue  to  govern  in  spite  of  folk- 
moots  and  their  formula?,  and  who  in  the  end  witnessed 
the  wiping  out  of  the  folkmoot  altogether,  and  its 
removal  from  amongst  the  city  institutions.  This 
struggle  for  power  reveals  two  distinctly  opposite 
institutions,  so  distinctly  opposite  as  to  impose  upon 
us  the  conclusion  that  they  are  derived  from  two 
distinct  sources.  We  know  the  folkmoot  in  its  un- 
success  was  English  ;  we  can  only  conclude  that  the 
body  of  discreet  men  was,  in  its  success,  Roman  in 
origin.  There  is  no  other  argument  to  adopt.  In 
the  course  of  this  struggle,  illuminating  points  crop 
up  at  several  stages,  all  of  which  tend  to  confirm 
this  conclusion  ;  and  when  the  folkmoot  is  attended 
by  "  the  populace,  sons  of  divers  mothers,  many  of 
them  born  without  the  city,  and  many  of  servile 
condition,  with  loud  shouts  of  'Nay,  nay,  nay,'" 
we  are  in  presence  of  the  tumultuous  Anglo-Saxon, 
looking  beyond  the  walls  of  London  to  the  English 
settlements  around,  from  whence  he  derives  whatever 
power  he  possesses. 

This  is  well  illustrated  in  the  mediaeval  proceedings, 
and   I  shall  not  hesitate  to  quote  these  as  absolute 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  117 

survivals  of  proceedings  which  had  been  going  on  ever 
since  the  Anglo-Saxon  had  entered  London.  There 
is  nothing  of  Plantagenet  character  in  these  proceed- 
ings. They  do  not  belong  to  Norman  history.  They 
can  only  belong  to  Anglo-Saxon  history,  and  they 
bring  with  it  the  evidence  of  the  real  governance  of 
London  by  direct  continuity  from  Roman  times. 

These  proceedings,  showing  the  fight  between  the 
popular  assembly  or  folkmoot,  where  every  citizen 
had  a  right  to  attend,  and  the  smaller  body,  are  well 
related  in  the  Clironiclcs  of  the  Mayor  and  Sheriffs 
of  London,  1188  to  1274.  In  12-19,  upon  the  abbot 
of  Westminster  and  his  advisers  desiring  to  hold  a 
conference  with  the  mayor  and  aldermen,  "  the  whole 
of  the  populace  opposed  it,  and  would  not  allow  them, 
without  the  whole  of  the  commons  being  present,  to 
treat  at  all  of  the  matter"  (p.  18).  Again,  in  1257, 
on  the  occasion  of  charges  being  made  against  certain 
aldermen,  the  king  gave  orders  to  the  sheriffs  to 
convene  the  folkmoot  on  the  morrow  at  St  Paul's 
Cross,  upon  which  day  all  the  aldermen  and  citizens 
came  there.  Tlie  proceedings  are  fully  described,  but 
the  passage  interesting  to  us  is  the  following :  "  To 
which  inquiry  (no  conference  being  first  held  among 
the  discreet  men  of  the  city,  as  is  usually  the  practice), 
answer  was  made  by  some  of  the  populace,  sons  of 
divers  mothers,  many  of  them  born  without  the  city, 
and  many  of  servile  condition,  with  loud  shouts  of 
•Nay,  nay,  nay'"  (p.  38).  In  12G2  we  have  the 
following  remarkable  passage :  *•  The  mayor,  Thomas 


118  LONDON 

FitzThomas,  during  the  time  of  his  mayoralty,  had  so 
pampered  the  city  populace  that,  styling  themselves 
the  '  commons  of  the  city,'  they  had  obtained  the  first 
voice  in  the  city.  For  the  mayor,  in  doing  all  that 
he  had  to  do,  acted  and  determined  through  them, 
and  would  say  to  them,  '  Is  it  your  will  that  so  it 
shall  be  ? '  and  then  if  they  answered,  '  Ya,  ya,'  so  it 
was  done.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  aldermen  or 
chief  citizens  were  little  or  not  at  all  consulted  on 
such  matter"  (p.  59).  In  1265  the  populace  cried 
"  Nay,  nay "  to  the  proposed  election  of  William 
FitzRichard  as  sheriff',  and  demanded  Thomas  Fitz- 
Thomas (p.  91).  In  1266  "the  low  people  arose, 
calling  themselves  the  commons  of  the  city  "  (p.  95). 
In  1271  the  old  dispute  broke  out  again  in  the  election 
of  mayor,  and  the  record  of  this  is  very  instructive 
(pp.  154-1.56). 

It  is  instructive  in  many  ways.  Nowhere  in 
London  archives  or  in  London  tradition  do  we  have 
the  English  method  of  electing  the  Mayor,  Portreeve, 
or  whatever  other  title  the  head  of  the  city  was 
called.  The  English  method  survived  in  other 
municipal  towns  but  not  in  London.  At  Folkestone, 
Seaford,  Southampton,  High  Wycombe,  and  other 
purely  English  towns  the  ceremony  of  electing  the 
chief  magistrate  belongs  to  the  domain  of  primitive 
politics  and  is  of  the  same  character  as  that  of 
electing  the  King  on  the  sacred  stone  at  Kingston.^ 

1   See  my  Primilivc  Fo/kmouts,  \yp.    15.'>-155.     The   London  stone 
ceremony  is  referable  to  an  entirely  different  origin. 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  119 

London  contains  no  trace  of  such  a  custom  in  con- 
nection with  the  intruding  folkmoot  of  the  Enghsh 
incomers,  and  this  negative  evidence  is  of  importance. 
The  folkmoot  disappeared  from  I^ondon  institutions. 
It  may  have  eventually  developed  into  the  Common 
Hall,  the  one  institution  of  the  city  which  represents 
the  pin-ely  democratic  element.  But  even  here  it  is 
to  he  noted  that  it  is  engulfed  by  the  city  organisa- 
tion;  it  did  not  itself  engulf,  it  is  engulfed.  It  is 
admitted  no  longer  as  the  open  democratic  meeting 
in  the  open  air  for  any  purpose,  but  as  the  restricted 
democratic  meeting  in  the  Guildhall  for  definite 
purposes.  "Aye,  aye"  and  "Nay,  nay,"  no  longer 
the  formula,  is  still  the  principle.  The  Common  Hall 
accepts  or  rejects  the  nominated  mayor.  It  is  the 
electoral  college  for  certain  other  offices.  But,  again, 
it  has  no  strong  functional  powers,  and  its  more 
ancient  powers  of  assembling  whensoever  it  would  at 
the  call  of  the  great  bell  of  St  Paul's  and  grumbling 
as  it  had  a  mind  to,  is  replaced  by  limited  powers  of 
meeting  and  by  strictly  limited  functions.  The  city 
government  could  not  perhaps  destroy  it,  could  not 
easily  destroy  it  at  all  events,  and  it  was  therefore 
brought  within  the  roofed  limitations  of  the  Guildhall, 
its  functions  being  fenced  in  on  every  side  with  a 
precise  ceremonial  of  so  pronounced  a  character  as  to 
supply  evidence  of  the  limitations  imposed.  And 
finally  tiie  cathedral  authorities  laid  sacrilegious 
hands  upon  the  site  of  the  ancient  meeting-place — 
qui  dicltur  folkmoot.  as  the  records  proudly  call  it. 


120  LONDON 

There  is  no  record  of  the   first   institution   of  the 
folkmoot,  only  of  its  struggle  and  its  disappearance. 

One  other  institution  has  a  somewhat  different 
history,  but  the  same  practical  result.  1  mean  the 
Court  of  Hustings,  with  its  significant  English  title. 
In  this  court  all  kinds  of  real  actions  for  the  recovery 
of  lands  and  tenements  within  the  city  and  its  liberties 
are  cognisable ;  and  in  this  language  we  can  easily 
recognise  a  translation  of  that  which  would  have  de- 
scribed the  archaic  duties  of  the  old  tribal  assembly, 
especially  if  we  take  into  consideration  the  exceedingly 
curious  powers  which  attend  proceedings  under  this 
court.  Just  as  in  the  Icelandic  Housething,  it  has 
to  deal  with  each  case  straight  off — it  is  a  court  of 
emergency.  AVhen  it  gets  conventionalised  the  pro- 
cedure is  still  archaic  in  form.  The  recorder  must 
pronounce  judgment,  and  forty  freeholders  form 
the  inquest,  chosen  from  twelve  men  and  the  alder- 
men from  the  ward  where  the  tenements  in  question 
lie,  and  the  same  number  from  each  of  the  three 
wards  next  to  the  said  tenements.  Such  a  court  as 
this  was  the  result  of  no  political  legislation.  It  is 
the  descendant  of  that  archaic  assembly  which  belonged 
to  every  tribal  community.  It  held  sway  in  the  city 
as  the  highest  court,  and  it  has  become  obsolete.  It 
came  into  the  city  from  without,  and  there  is  no  record 
of  its  entry.  It  ceased  to  exist  there,  and  there  is  no 
formal  record  of  its  disuse. 

This  would  apparently  supply  evidence  of  a  tem- 
porarily successful  English  intrusion  into  the  govern- 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  121 

ance  of  London.  Hut  it  is  so  in  form  only.  The 
Court  of  Hustings  administered  no  primitive  form  of 
land  tenure.  There  were  no  manorial  customs  of 
descent  to  adjudicate.  There  is  merely  the  law  of 
London,  and  the  method  by  which  the  city  kept  its 
powers  in  this  court  is  fully  recorded  in  the  archives 
which  have  been  so  fully  published  by  the  corpora- 
tion.^ The  Court  of  Hustings  was  English  in  form, 
but  it  was  dominated  by  the  civic  authorities. 

In  the  conditions  of  these  two  institutions  we  have 
the  real  facts  of 
London  history  dur- 
ing Anglo  -  Saxon 
rule  in  the  country. 
The  folkmoot  re- 
mained English  in 
form  and  in  consti- 
tution, but  it  was  never  allowed  to  assume  a  position 
in  the  organised  government  of  the  city.  It  was 
dominated  from  above.  The  hustings  remained 
English  in  form  and  in  constitution,  but  it  was 
dominated  from  within.  The  mayor  and  aldermen 
were  its  chief  members,  the  administration  of  a 
limited  section  of  London  law,  not  English  law, 
was  its  only  duty.  Powerful  enough  to  force  these 
two  institutions  into  the  city,  the  English  incomers 
were  not  powerful  enough  to  make  them  essential  and 
dominating  institutions   of  the    city.     And  so  their 

*   Calendar  of  IVUh  proved  and  enrolled  in  I  he  Court  of  Husting, 
Lond.,  A.D.  1258-1688 ;  see  p.  xii  of  tlie  introduction. 


Tumbril,  used  for  punishing  offenders. 


122 


LONDON 


disappearance,  by  the  process  of  absorption  and 
assimilation,  is  the  measure  of  their  influence  upon 
the  city. 

This  evidence  is  that  of  impotent  forcefulness,  not 
the  strength  of  a  new  governing  people,  and  beyond 
this  there  is  nothing  of  supreme  importance  which 
comes  to  later  London  from  Anglo-Saxon  London. 
Even   the    famous   example   of    London   legislation 

known  as  the  judicia 
civitatis  Luudonice  does 
not  bequeath  a  clean-cut 
Anglo-Saxon  institution. 
To  it  we  may  perhaps 
have  to  refer  the  origin 
of  the  later  English  gild 
system.  But  it  is  not  a 
document  which  speaks 
of  Anglo-Saxon  domin- 
ance. It  speaks  of  Lon- 
don necessities  under  Anglo-Saxon  rule,  and  shows 
the  resourcefulness  of  London  statesmen.  Its  pur- 
pose was  to  prevent  robberies  in  the  country  com- 
mitted upon  London  merchandise.  Its  method  of 
doino"  this  was  to  institute  a  citizen  gildship  which 
should  have  the  same  procedure  and  the  same  powers 
outside  London  as  the  Anglo-Saxon  tribal  kinships 
had  there — the  powers  of  defence,  reprisal,  and  wer- 
o-ild.  These  belong  to  a  tribal  system,  not  a  state 
system  of  polity.  London  by  this  act,  it  is  true, 
adopted  Anglo-Saxon  methods  for  London  purposes, 


The  pillory,  from  Harman,  A  Caveat 
or  Warning,  1567. 


I^^^l 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  123 

but  by  so  doing  it  declared  in  unmistakable  language 
that  at  this  period  of  its  Anglo-Saxon  existence  it 
was  not  governed  by  Anglo-Saxon  rule  and  pro- 
cedure. It  was  the  only  means  left  to  it  to  secure 
protection  for  its  trade  in  an  Anglo-Saxon-governed 
country,  and  so,  in  its  own  practical  manner,  it  adopted 
this  means,  as  throughout  its  history  it  has  adopted 
contemporary  methods  to  meet  the  necessities  of 
the  moment.^ 

And  when  we  come  to  examine  the  detail  of  this 
gildship  organisation,  we 
discover  further  evidence 
of  its  special  London 
characteristic.  1 1  is,  after 
all,     a      London      form 

of    gildship     based      upon  Fetters,  from  llarman. 

Anglo-Saxon  formula?,  but  not  an  English  gildship  of 
the  accepted  type.  The  keynote  of  its  purpose  is  not, 
as  every  authority  has  insisted  upon,  its  organisation 
for  the  common  good  to  every  gild  brother,  but  it  is 
the  common  enmity  to  those  outside  the  gildship- — 
"  We  should  be  all  so  in  one  friendship  as  in  one 
foeship,  whichever  it  then  may  be,"  are  the  expressive 
words  of  the  city  law.  "  Whichever  it  then  may  be  !  " 
And  as  foeship  occupies  by  far  the  larger  number  of 
clauses  of  which  the  law  is  composed,  it  is  not  difficult 
to  estimate  the  larger  issue  of  the  law,  compared 
with  the  formal  issue  of  the  gildship.  Brotherhood 
is  one  thing.     It  was  needful  to  get   the   necessary 

1  I  worked  this  out  in  my  Governance  of  London,  pp.  121-135. 


|"id)=(S'*'l 


124 


LONDON 


banding  together ;  perhaps  it  was  needful  to  get  the 
sovereign  sanction  to  the  exercise  of  the  new  London 
law  beyond  the  bounds  of  London.  Protection 
against  the  foe  is  quite  another  thing,  and  with  the 
rights  of  wergild,  pursuit,  and  retaliation  preserved 
to  the  gildsmen  there  can  be  no  question  as  to 
which  is  the  dominant  feature  of  the  earliest  gild 
of  London/  If  this  institution  is  handed  down  to 
Norman  and  Plantagenet  London  as  a  heritage  from 


Ducking  stool. 

English  London,  it  is  in  the  form  of  a  London 
ordinance  which  was  not  English,  and  by  the 
agency  of  a  London  governance  which  was  not 
English. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  something  of  signifi- 
cance in  that  a  few  minor  things — minor  in  the  scale 
of  institutions,  that  is — may  no  doubt  be  scheduled 
among  inherited  items  from  Anglo-Saxon  origins. 
The  methods  of  punishment— the  pound,  the  stocks, 
the  pillory,  the  ducking  stool,  the  drowning  place— 

1  A  comparison  with  the  J3anish  gilds  is  most  useful  on  this 
point ;  see  Toulmin  Smith's  English  Gi/dx,  Brentano's  introductory 
essay,  {)p.  cii-civ. 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS 


125 


The  stocks,  from  an  old  Ijallad. 


are  of  probable  English  origin.^  Methods  of  punish- 
ment, however,  come  after  the  sentence  of  punish- 
ment, after  the  verdict 
and  the  judgment. 
The  executioner  or 
the  gaoler  is  a  less  im- 
portant officer  than  the 
law  which  condemns 
and  the  judge  who 
imposes  sentence ;  the 
judgment  always  be- 
longs to  the  upper  power,  is  always  the  mayor  and 
aldermen  in  mediaeval  days ;  and  the  form  of  punish- 
ment alone  comes  from  the  lower  power.     Fragments 

such  as  these  are  not 
to  be  discarded  or 
minimised.  They  have 
an  importance  all  their 
own,  and  we  have  only 
arrived  by  their  means 
at     the     same     result 


11  -^" 


The  stocks,  from  Harman,  A  CuTcal 
or  IVarning,  1567. 


which  has  already  been 
reached. 

Two  further  points  are  of  interest  in  the  con- 
sideration of  Anglo-Saxon  London — the  meeting  of 

^  See  the  curious  "  Judgments  of  pillory  for  Lies,  Slanders, 
Falsehoods,  and  Deceits ;  as  also  other  Judgments,  Imprisonments, 
Forfeitures,  Fines,  and  Burnings  of  divers  things,"  in  the  Liber 
Albus  (Riley  trans.),  pp.  517-526.  The  pillory  was  in  Cheapside, 
the  stocks  upon  Cornhill  and  in  Lombard  Street,  judicial  drowning 
at  Baynard's  Castle  in  the  Thames. 


126 


LONDON 


the  witenagemot  there  and  the  residence  of  the 
king.  Liebermann  has  recently,  at  the  Historical 
Congress  of  1913,  collected  the  principal  facts  on 
the  national  assembly  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  period, 
and  enumerates  twenty-one  meetings  in  London, 
ranging  from  a.d.  790  to  the  end  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  period.  This  is  undoubtedly  important 
evidence  as  to  the  position  of  London,  but  it  is 
difficult   to    say   in    what    precise    direction.     There 

may  be  a  fragment  of 
Anglo-Saxon  history  in 
another  item,  interest- 
ing on  its  own  account, 
and  occurring  in  a  six- 
teenth-century book  of 
accounts  belonging  to 
St  Paul's  Cathedral. 
It  relates  to  "certeyn  olde  ruinouse  houses  and 
grounde  lying  in  Aldermanbury,  sumtyme  the  Place 
of  Saincte  ^Ethelbert  Kyng."  ^  Whether  the  naming 
of  this  place  implies  a  residence  in  London  of  Alfred's 
brother  and  predecessor,  or  whether  it  is  a  post- 
scriptum  of  the  Cathedral  church,  one  dare  not  say. 
It  is  a  fragment  with  all  sorts  of  possibilities  if  we 
only  possessed  its  historical  beginning. 

Looking  generally  at  the  several  phases  of  the 
London  constitution,  we  can  find  no  evidence  of  it  ever 
becoming  Englished  as  York,  Chester,  Winchester, 
Exeter,  and  other  Roman  cities  were  Englished.     It 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Co7n.,  ix.  p.  44, 


Whipping  at  the  cart-tail,  from  Harman, 
A  Caveat  or  Wai-ning,  1567. 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS 


127 


is  only  outside  London  that  we  can  discover  the 
Enghsh  institutions  in  their  full  strength.  Anglo- 
Saxon  so\ ereignty  governed  from  outside  London — 
at  Kingston  the  crowning  place  in  tribal  fashion,  at 
Westminster  the  assembly  place  in  tribal  fashion ; 
and  London  remains  from  this  cause  the  one  capital 
city  of  western  civilisation  where  the  governmental 
centre  is  not  within  the 
city.  This  surely  is 
conclusive.  It  shows 
not  only  the  extent, 
but  the  limitations  of 
Anglo  -  Saxon  power. 
It  could  not  penetrate 
into  London.  It  could 
only  govern  from  out- 
side. This  state  of 
things  falls  into  line 
with  other  evidence. 
The  Danish  settlement 
at  Aldwych,  resulting  from  the  Danish  conquest 
of  tlie  country,  remained  outside  the  city  walls. 
At  Rochester  and  at  Dublin  settlements  precisely 
similar  in  character  were  inside  the  city.  The 
English  land  tenure  and  village  settlements  remained 
outside  the  city  boundary,  came  right  up  to  it, 
•and  then  were  stayed  by  the  city  law  of  land 
tenure  which  descends  from  Roman  sources.  In- 
stances of  this  occur  quite  late  in  historical  evidence 
because  land  tenure  changes  so  slowly.      Common 


Gallows,  from  Harman,  A  Caveat  or 
IVarning,  1567. 


128  LONDON 

fields  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  type  are  marked  upon 
the  early  maps  of  London,  while  among  the  records 
there  are  many  interesting  evidences  of  this.  A 
True  Bill,  20th  January,  3  Elizabeth,  cites  that 
"  whereas  the  citizens  and  other  inhabitants  of  London 
have  been  accustomed  from  time  beyond  the  memory 
of  man  to  shoot  with  bows  in  all  the  open  fields  in  the 
parish  of  Stebbynhith,  co.  INIidd.  and  elsewhere  near 
the  said  city,  viz.  in  the  common  lands  called 
Stebbynhyth  feyldes,  RatclyfF  feyldes,  Mylende 
feyldes,  Blethnall  grene,  Spyttle-feildes,  Morefeldes, 
Fynnesbury  feyldes,  Hoggesdon  feyldes,  co.  Midd. 
without  hindrance  from  any  person,  so  that  all  archers 
have  been  able  to  go  out  in  the  same  open  fields  to 
shoot  with  the  bow  and  come  out  from  them  at 
pleasure,  in  such  manner  nevertheless  that  the  said 
archers  do  no  harm  to  the  growing  corn  nor  to  grass 
reserved  for  seed,  John  Draney,  citizen  and  clothier 
of  the  city  of  London,  has  notwithstanding,  on  the 
aforesaid  day,  trenched  in  with  deep  ditches  a  certain 
open  field  called  Stebbynhithe  close  and  against 
custom  has  planted  it  with  green  hedges,  in  order 
that  the  said  archers  may  no  longer  be  able  to  enter, 
pass  through  and  leave  freely  and  at  their  pleasure 
the  said  field  of  Stebbynhithe  Close."  There  is  no 
mistaking  the  historical  significance  of  this.  The 
lands  of  Stepney,  though  they  belonged  to  the 
cathedral  of  St  Paul's,  were  not  held  by  municipal 
tenures.  They  were  entirely  manorial,  and  the 
holders    were   not   citizens   of   London,    but   merely 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  129 

tenants  of  the  cathedral  cliupter,  lords  of  the  manor. 
They  illustrate,  as  corresponding  evidence  all  round 
London  from  maps  as  from  records  would  illustrate, 
that  Saxon  and  Dane,  all-powerful  and  strong  out- 
side London,  are  struggling  and  unsuccessful  in 
their  efforts  to  obtain  command  in  London  ;  and  the 
fact  that  the  Danish  conquest  supplies  the  most 
comprehensive  parallel  to  the  Saxon  conquest  is 
conclusive  proof  of  the  power  of  Roman  London 
throughout  Anglo-Saxon  history. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  an  important  stage. 
London  appears  from  the  evidence  to  be  extra- 
ordinarily independent  of  the  English  state,  and  even 
of  the  English  sovereignty.  She  also  appears  from 
other  evidence  to  have  certain  powers  over  the  English 
sovereignty  itself.  This  comes,  in  the  first  place,  from 
the  part  which  London  played  in  the  election  of  the 
Danish  kings  of  the  early  eleventh  century.  If  this 
action  had  ceased  with  the  eleventh  century,  and  with 
tlie  Danish  monarchs,  there  would  not  have  been  much 
to  say  of  it.  It  was  not  only  repeated  in  the  restored 
Anglo-Saxon  kingship,  but  it  was  repeated  during  the 
entire  Plantagenet  rule.  It  is  impossible,  then,  to 
derive  this  important  London  function  from  Danish 
sources,  and  if  we  go  behind  the  records  of  this  date 
we  find  it  necessary  to  appeal  to  certain  conditions 
which  once  more  take  us  to  the  Roman  city  of 
Londinium. 

As  in  Gaul,  so  in  Britain,  the  first  act  of  an  usurping 

Ctesar  was  to  fix  upon  his  city  of  government — his 

9 


130  LONDON 

Rome.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  both  Carausius 
and  Allectus  fixed  upon  London  for  this  purpose. 
It  is  a  matter  of  recorded  history  that  Artorius,  the 
dux  hellorum  of  the  cities  and  the  Britons,  was  crowned 
king  at  Silchester,  Caerleon,  and  London.  An  ela- 
borate description  of  the  ceremonial  at  Caerleon  is 
given  by  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth,  which  is  stated  to 
be  founded  on  ancient  custom  {de  more),  and  has  all 
the  appearance  of  a  genuine  account  from  some 
ancient  source.  Honorius  in  409  had  sent  Constantine 
a  robe  of  the  imperial  purple  as  formal  acknowledg- 
ment of  his  claim  as  joint  emperor.  At  this  point 
we  may  clearly  refer  to  the  Welsh  attitude  towards 
"  the  crown  of  London,"  and  suggest  that  in  London 
there  was  retained  official  knowledge  of  the  Homan 
ceremonial  at  the  inauguration  of  Emperor,  Caesar,  or 
Rex ;  that  the  constant  reference  to  the  formula  of 
"  the  crown  of  London  "  was,  in  fact,  a  reference  to 
London  as  the  only  place  in  Britain  where  knowledge 
of  the  imperial  ceremony  resided,  and  that  in  this 
way  London  was  looked  up  to  as  the  source  from 
which  alone  the  sovereignty  of  Britain  or  its  parts 
could  be  obtained.  The  claimants  to  the  purple 
elected  in  Britain  would  have  used  that  ceremonial 
to  strengthen  their  sovereign  power.  The  later  post- 
Roman  leaders,  Aurelius  Ambrosius  and  the  de- 
scendants of  Maximus,  would  carry  on  the  customary 
observances ;  and  when  the  early  English  monarchs 
appreciated  the  distinction,  to  use  Mr  Plummer's 
words,    "  between     the     immediate     dominions     or 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  131 

regnum  of  any  king  and  the  imperiuni  or  overlord- 
ship  which  he  might  exercise  over  other  Saxon 
kingdoms  or  Celtic  tribes," '  they  too  sought  tlie 
ceremonial  of  the  imperial  purple.  Edwin  is 
recorded  by  Beda  to  have  definitely  assumed  the 
insignia  of  Roman  authority :  "  When  he  walked 
along  the  streets,  that  sort  of  banner  which  tlie 
Romans  called  Tufa  and  the  English  Thuuf  was 
borne  before  him  " ; "  and  Palgrave  goes  so  far  as  to 
say  that  "  if  his  reign  had  been  prolonged  he  might 
have  renovated  the  Empire  of  Britain."^ 

I  am  going  to  rely  upon  the  fact  that  custom  is 
stated  to  be  at  the  root  of  all  this  for  the  necessary 
conclusion  that  we  have  in  these  disconnected  frag- 
ments a  historic  basis  for  the  "continuity  of  Roman 
ceremonial,  so  far  at  least  as  it  affected  the  sovereign 
authority.  The  city  was  a  necessary  factor  in  the 
situation,  and  if  we  can  find  that  London  exercises 
extraordinary  functions  in  connection  with  the 
sovereignty  in  post-Roman  times,  there  is  strong 
claim  for  such  functions  being  derived  from  ancient 
custom  which  reaches  back  to  Roman  Londinium. 

We  do  not  find  such  evidence  until  the  early 
eleventh  century,  but  it  is  then  definite  and  clear, 
with  no  suggestion  that  it  was  an  innovation.  Taking- 
each  authority  who  supplies  evidence  of  this  as  of 
almost  equal  value — as   the   recorder   of  a  tradition 

^  Plummer's  Beda,  vol.  ii.  p.  86. 

-  Beda,  Eccles.  Hist.,  lib.  ii.  cap.  xvi. 

2  English  ComiHonweallh,  vol.  i.  p.  429. 


132  LONDON 

capable  of  being  authenticated  at  the  date  of  the 
record,  if  not  of  facts  obtained  from  historical  data — 
we  find  that  William  of  Malmesbury  uses  important 
terms.  He  describes  "  Londoners  alone  protecting 
their  lawful  sovereign  within  their  walls,"  in  the 
unsuccessful  attack  of  Sweyn  against  Ethelred  in 
1013.  He  attributes  Edmund's  election  as  due  to 
"  the  citizens  immediately,"  upon  the  death  of  Ethelred 
in  1016,  having  "proclaimed  Edmund  king."  He 
describes  Harold's  succession  to  Canute  in  1036  in 
still  more  remarkable  terms :  "  He  was  elected  by 
the  Danes  and  the  citizens  of  London,  who  from  long 
intercourse  with  these  barbarians  had  almost  entirely 
adopted  their  customs."  Florence  of  Worcester  and 
Roger  of  Hoveden  first  describe  the  election  of 
Canute  in  1016  by  the  witan,  and  then,  as  against 
this  act,  go  on  to  say  that  "the  citizens  of  London, 
and  a  part  of  the  nobles  who  were  at  that  time 
staying  there,  with  unanimous  consent  elected  the 
Clito  Edmund  king."  Matthew  of  Westminster 
repeats  Florence's  account  of  Edmund's  election, 
but  gives  another  account  of  Harold's  election. 
"  Leofric  and  all  the  Danish  nobles  in  London 
elected  Harold."  Henry  of  Huntingdon  describes 
the  election  of  Harold  "  at  a  great  council  held 
at  Oxford,  where  Earl  Leofric  and  all  the  thanes 
north  of  the  Thames,  with  the  I^ondoners,  chose 
Harold."  Ingulph,  for  what  he  is  worth,  says 
Edmund  succeeded  to  the  throne  "  upon  the  elec- 
tion   of    the    Londoners    and     West    Saxons";    and 


ENGLISH    INCOMINGS  133 

that  "  the  Danes  and  Londoners  made  choice  of 
Harold"  in  103G.  The  terms  used  in  describing 
these  transactions  are  practically  the  same  in  all 
these  authorities.  There  is  nothing  to  be  gained  by 
attempting  to  discriminate  between  the  language 
of  Florence  compared  with  that  of  William  of 
Malmesbury  or  Roger  of  Hoveden.  "  Conclamant," 
"  elegerunt "  have  a  perfectly  definite  meaning,  and 
when  their  nominatives  are  the  citizens  of  London, 
"  oppidani,"  "  cives,"  and  so  on,  the  position  of 
London  in  Anglo-Saxon  times  with  regard  to  the 
English  sovereignty  is  placed  beyond  question. 

There  is  clearly  much  of  significance  in  these 
records.  They  relate  wholly  to  the  Danish  period, 
but  not  wholly  to  the  Danish  kings,  for  they  begin 
with  one  great  English  king — Edmund  Ironside— 
and  the  attitude  of  London  towards  Edmund  was 
definitely  and  emphatically  that  of  a  city  carrying 
out  in  a  peculiarly  strong  way  a  traditional  right. 
Moreover,  the  Danes  cannot  themselves  have  intro- 
duced a  city  ceremonial  in  connection  with  the 
sovereignty,  for  it  was  contrary  to  all  their  traditions 
and  their  practices.  The  alternative  is  that  they 
used  the  London  position  to  serve  their  own  purposes, 
and  the  fact  that  the  saga  of  these  events,  The 
Hc'nuskringla,  contains  reference  to  the  traditional 
formula,  "  London's  king,"  in  connection  with  a  skald 
rhyme  on  King  Canute,^  is  confirmation  of  this 
conclusion.     It  is  the  same   formula   as   that  which 

^   The  Heimskiinglu,  trans.  Morris,  cap.  exciv. 


134  LONDON 

occurs  in  the  Welsh  laws,  and  it  must  refer  back  to 
the  same  conditions.  We  arrive  then  at  this,  that 
London  had  a  special  and  definite  relationship  to 
the  national  or  state  sovereignty,  that  it  was  part  of 
the  city  institutions,  and  that,  broken  as  the  record 
is,  it  goes  back  to  the  city  institution  of  Roman 
Londinium. 

There  is  one  word  by  way  of  summary  to  add  here. 
At  the  root  of  all  these  phases  of  London  constitu- 
tional life  during  the  Anglo-Saxon  period  lies  the 
cardinal  fact  of  continuity.  Anglo-Saxon  London 
was  Roman  London  in  all  essentials,  English  London 
in  nothing  but  sub-essentials — in  its  endeavours  and 
not  in  its  successes.  The  fact  of  continuity  lands  us 
at  the  end  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period  with  a  city 
fundamentally  Roman  in  constitution,  in  relation- 
ship to  the  state,  Englished  perhaps  at  the  fringes, 
Englished  in  its  outlook,  particularly  Englished  in  its 
growing  attitude  of  loyalty  to  the  English  state — in 
all  else  Roman. 


CHAPTER   VI 

THE    INSTITUTION    OF    THE    CITV 

The  Norman  brought  English  London  into  the 
EngHsh  state — made  it  one  of  the  great  institutions 
of  the  EngKsh  state.  But  not  even  the  Xorman 
kings,  with  their  great  genius  for  government  and 
greater  ambition,  determined  what  precisely  its  posi- 
tion was  to  be.  That  was  tlie  work  of  London  itself. 
It  struggled  to  its  new  position.  In  the  records  of 
the  city  one  feels  the  movement  of  the  struggle — the 
writhing  powerful  body  beneath  the  hand  of  inexor- 
able sovereignty.  But  the  fact  of  struggle,  the  fact 
that  we  have  a  struggling  London  in  place  of  a  free 
and  contented  London,  is  the  measure  of  the  city's 
adherence  to  its  old  life  and  methods.  If  it  did  not 
win  all  along  the  line,  it  at  least  determined  that  it 
was  to  be  unlike  anything  else  in  a  political  state  of 
the  western  world,  that  it  was  to  be  a  new  departure 
among  political  institutions,  an  experiment  which, 
under  the  genius  of  a  governing  people,  was  to  work 
through  to  a  successful  issue.  The  continuity  of 
history  and  development  did  not  cease.  It  was  not 
even  interrupted.  The  fresh  stimulus  and  the  new 
direction  were  switched  on  to  the  old  driving  power, 

135 


136 


LONDON 


and  London  began  its  final  stage  of  city  existence, 
never  again  to  be  a  neglected  city,  never  to  be  a 
conquered  city,  never,  except  in  modern  days,  to  be 
unconsidered  in  its  greatness. 

The  work  of  the   Norman  was  begun  by  charter 

^ 


1 


1 


^*nri 


A^nv, 


\s 


•^•-  -  - i: 


ni._, 


i^  1 


London  in  the  thirteenth  century.      Royal  MSS.  14,  c.  7. 

grants.  William  the  Conqueror  began,  and  his 
successors  continued,  the  practice  of  granting  the  city 
powers  by  charter.  But  a  study  of  the  powers  in  the 
charter  clauses  shows  that  the  grants  were  in  the 
great  majority  of  cases  not  new  to  the  citizens,  not 
asked  for  by  the  citizens,  not  even  required  by  the 
citizens.  They  were  already  existing  powers  charter- 
ised,  if  it  is  admissible  to  use  such  a  word,  by  the 


THE   INSTITUTION   OF  THE   CITY   137 

sovereign.  They  were  powers  which  the  citizens 
possessed  before  the  new-fangled  thing  known  as  a 
charter  was  imposed  upon  them  ;  once  more,  then, 
reveahng  facts  older  than  the  historical  record  of  their 
existence. 

When  charter  legislation  was  introduced  by  the  able 
statesmen  of  the  Norman  conquest,  it  became  one  of 
the  greatest  assets  of  the  sovereign  power,  and  the 
greatest  moulding  force  of  state  and  city.     It  brought 
civic  custom  and  law  within  the 
authority  of  the  sovereign.      Its 
long  duration  and  constant  exer- 
cise   show    how    the    sovereign 
power  was  gradually,  but  effect- 
'\ve\y,    bringing   under   its   sway  y 

the  civic  powers  exercised  by  the  .__ .- 

city  independently  of  the  sove-  q,,  ^^^^^,^^.^,;^  ^^^,  ^P^.i^. 
reiffn  power.     It  did  more  than      ^f  "'^  century)  of  the  city 

or  of  London. 

this.     It  established  the  principle 

that  what  the  sovereign  had  granted  the  sovereign 
could  annul  or  alter.  It  brought  the  city  under  the 
a?gis  of  the  state — made  it  an  institution  of  the  state. 
In  this  new  condition  of  things,  London,  working 
for  the  most  part  with  its  ancient  machinery,  took  its 
place,  and  took  it  greatly.  It  never  liked  its  charter 
grants,  and  when  the  occasion  came  to  it,  it  swept  the 
very  conception  of  charters  on  one  side  and  stood  for 
its  ancient  communal  rights  in  its  old  unfettered  way. 
This  is  the  foundation  of  the  famous  story  of  the 
commune  if  we  read  it  in  the  full  light  of  surviving 


138  LONDON 

and  continuous  history.  It  is  neither  sudden  nor 
special.  It  comes  from  the  ancient  conditions  of 
London,  not  from  a  copying  of  the  cities  of  France. 
It  is  the  reclaiming  of  an  ancient  right,  not  the  grant 
of  a  new  one.  It  is  the  city's  demand,  not  the  sove- 
reign's concession.  It  is  an  acquisition  so  important 
as  to  amount  to  an  abstraction  from  the  sovereign 
power  and  the  restitution  of  city  power.  This  is  the 
commune  of  London  in  its  rightful  place  among 
London  institutions,  continuing  from  the  oldest 
governing  institutions  of  the  city,  proceeding  to  the 
new  development  which  by  reason  of  intervening 
events  was  found  to  be  necessary. 

The  keynote  of  the  commune  is  that  it  was  not 
granted  by  way  of  charter.  At  a  time  when  charter- 
granting,  in  front  of  the  commune  and  after  the 
commune,  was  the  predominant  policy  of  the  sovereign 
power,  it  is  unmistakably  significant  that  the  con- 
cession of  the  commune  did  not  produce  a  charter. 
The  reason  is  that  it  came  from  the  demand  of  the 
citizens.  They  assembled  in  a  body  to  demand  it, 
and  they,  knowing  by  this  time  how  charter  grants 
could  act  against  them,  and  that  they  were  of  little 
worth  to  them  when  the  rights  they  desired  depended 
upon  traditional  custom  and  usage,  demanded  and 
obtained  the  commune  as  an  act  between  sovereign 
and  citizen.  "  London  learnt  now  for  the  first  time," 
are  the  words  of  the  chronicler,  Richard  of  Devizes,^ 

1  Richard  of  Devizes,  De  relmx  gestix  Ricardi  primi,  Rolls  edit., 
vol.  iii.  p.  4lG. 


THE   INSTITUTION   OF  THE  CITY   139 

"in  obtcaining  the  commune,  that  tlie  reahn  had  no 
king,  for  neither  Richard  nor  his  father  and  predecessor 
Henry  would  ever  have  allowed  this  to  be  done  even 
for  a  thousand  thousand  marks  of  silver ;  how  great 
are  the  evils  which  spring  from  a  commune  may  be 
understood  from  the  common  saying — it  puflt's  up  the 
community  with  arrogance  and  frightens  the  kings." 
This  common  saying  was  accompanied  by  another : 
"  Come  what  may,  the  Londoners  would  have  no  king 
but  their  mayor."  This  evidence  is  undoubted.  It 
takes  us  back  to  that  ancient  kingship  of  London 
whicli  is  so  evident  in  Welsh  tradition  during  post- 
Roman  times ;  it  shows  the  Londoners  of  1191  going 
back  to  their  ancient  constitution.  The  very  name 
of  the  commune  was  dear  to  Londoners.  It  had  been 
put  forward  as  the  authority  for  demands  in  1141,  as 
William  of  JMalmesbury  testifies — it  was  the  ideal  of 
London's  constitution. 

What,  then,  was  this  commune,  of  English  origin 
and  not  of  French  manufacture — ^this  communa, 
communia,  comnmnio  (all  three  terms  are  used)  ?  It 
was  the  right  of  common  government  by  themselves, 
the  right  of  legal  recognition  as  a  community,  persona 
ficta,  by  the  laws  of  the  land.  And  it  was  a  restoration, 
for  the  Normans  had  eaten  into  the  city  constitution 
by  its  sokes,  little  islands  of  personal  jurisdiction  within 
the  city  bounds  which  made  the  city  appear  as  a 
bundle  of  communities  instead  of  one  community. 
It  is  the  principle  of  the  one  community  which  was 
the  basis  of  the  commune.     Once  this  was  recognised 


140 


LONDON 


all  else  fitted  into  the  city  organisation  without  further 
trouble  and  enabled  London  in  1215  to  stand  for 
its  rights.^  It  has  been  suggested  by  some  historians 
that  London  reaped  little  advantage  from  this  act 
of  John,  Prince  Regent,  and  traitor  to  his  brother 
the  king.  But  let  them  study  the  charters.  Once 
.  —  more   we   see    the 

point  of  view 
changing.  William 
began  with  his  "  I 
will,"  and  his  suc- 
cessors followed 
with  a  formula  to 
the  same  purpose. 
Charters  from 
Henry  L  to  Ed- 
ward L  were  ad- 
dressed     by      the 

Seal  of  Sir  Robert  FitzWalter,  castellain  or  chief     kiuff  "  tO  the   arcll- 
banneret  of  London,  temp.  Edward  I. 

bishops,  bishops, 
abbots,  earls,  barons,  justices,  sheriffs,  stewards, 
castle-keepers,  constables,  bailiffs,  ministers,  and  all 
his  faithful  subjects  greeting,"  and  then  proceeded, 
"  Know  ye,  that  we  have  granted  and  by  this  present 
charter  confirmed   for  us  and  our  heirs, '  etc.     This 

1  111  spite  f)t"  Mr  Round's  brilliant  study  of  the  London  commune 
I  lliink  the  entire  evidence  points  in  the  direction  of  my  conclusion, 
and  Mr  Fetit-Dutaillis's  admirable  summary  of  the  evidence  in  his 
Shidies  and  Notes  to  Stubhx'  Co7ist.  Hist.,  pp.  <)6-10(),  finishes  with  an 
expression  which,  though  incorrect  in  form,  is  practically  confirma- 
tory of  my  view. 


THE   INSTITUTION  OF  THE  CITY   141 

applied  to  all  the  charters  which  granted  or  con- 
firmed already  existing  customs  and  rights,  but  when 
something  absolutely  new  was  the  subject-matter 
a  change  came  about,  and  the  first  charter  of 
Edward  II.  denotes  how  drastic  the  change  was 
to  be,  and  how  significantly  it  went  back  to  early 
precedent.  The  citizens  "  had  lately  ordained  and 
appointed  among  themselves,  for  the  bettering  of  the 


•_ii-oi 


y 


Bear-bailiiiij,  from  Chaptci  House. 

same  city,  .  .  .  certain  things  to  be  in  the  same  city 
perpetually  observed,"  and  the  king  confirmed  these 
"certain  things."  In  doing  this  he  was  actually 
going  back  to  the  self- same  procedure  adopted  by 
the  citizens  under  King  xVthelstan.  Both  instru- 
ments were  for  the  purpose  of  a  change  in  the 
constitutions  of  the  city.  The  citizens  legislated  for 
themselves.  The  sovereign  endorsed  this  legislation 
in  order  that  it  might  be  recognised  throughout  the 
country  outside  the  city.  The  closeness  of  this 
parallel  in  procedure  is  evidence  of  the  continuity  of 
London  history — what  was  done  in  the  years  900-912 


142  LONDON 

under  King   Athelstan  the  Saxon  was  done  in  the 
year  1319  under  King  Edward  the  Norman. 

During  all  this  time,  while  London  was  settling 
down  into  its  position  as  an  English  institution, 
things  were  happening  which,  if  we  could  but  even 
summarise,  would  reveal  the  inner  working  of 
London  under  its  old  system  of  independence.  The 
great  mass  of  its  actions  were  unchartered — were 
not  only  unchartered,  but  were  never  considered  as 
capable  of  being  charterised.  The  state  did  not 
govern  the  people  in  the  ordinary  concerns  of  life. 
The  land,  the  military  forces,  taxation,  capital  crimes, 
the  administration  of  justice  on  the  higher  counts, 
were  duties  which  the  state  attended  to.  The 
relationship  of  citizens  to  each  other,  the  conditions 
of  industry,  the  general  order  of  things,  were  un- 
touched by  the  state,  and  few  subjects  are  more  worth 
the  attention  of  the  student  than  a  classification 
of  state  law  and  municipal  law  in  mediaeval  times. 
It  would  show  by  way  of  contrast  the  ordinary 
manorial  tenant  to  be  almost  unrecognised  by  the 
law,  while  the  London  citizen  was  protected  by  laws 
of  his  own,  inherited  or  instituted.  It  would  show 
London  at  the  very  top  of  things — I^ondon  enjoying 
its  heritage  from  its  Roman  beginning,  hunting  in 
territory  extending  all  around  to  Cray  ford,  Rich- 
mond, throughout  Middlesex ;  performing  ancient 
city  rights  so  far  away  from  city  gates  as  Knights- 
bridge  ;  controlling  its  magnificent  river ;  and  above 
its  enjoyments  and  its  outlook  beyond  walled  defences 


THE   INSTITUTION  OF  THE  CITY   143 

doing  a  thousand  acts  of  governance  as  matters  which 
had  resided  always  in  the  city. 

We  must  iUustrate  the  position  by  reference  to 
some  of  the  details.  One  of  its  acts  is  of  supreme 
importance.  It  shows  us  once  more  the  city  in  arms, 
not,  as  in  Anglo-Saxon  times,  on  behalf  primarily  of 
the  city,  but  definitely  assuming  its  military  character 
on  behalf  of  the  state.  In  the  wars  under  Stephen 
"  there  went  out  to  a  muster,  of  armed  horsemen 
{armatorum  equitum)  20,000  and  of  infantry  60,000  " 
(Fitzstephen).  In  1232,  "  cives  Londoniarum  mon- 
straverunt  se  armatos  a  la  JMile  Ende  et  in  foro  Lon- 
doniarum bene  paratos."^  The  great  events  of  1264 
were  assisted  by  London,  the  third  division  of  the 
army  of  the  barons  being  composed  of  Londoners." 

Among  the  many  difficulties  with  which  the  city 
had  to  contend,  the  most  bothersome  was  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Norman  sokes.  The  greatest  of  these  soke 
jurisdictions  was,  however,  not  personal.  It  was  the 
collegiate  church  of  St  Paul's.  The  sociological  side 
of  the  Church  has  never  been  worked  out  by  the  his- 
torian, even  if  it  has  been  thought  about,  and  when 
he  comes  to  his  task  he  will  find  the  evidence  of 
St  Paul's  almost  directly  to  his  hand.  The  cathedral 
constitution,  revealed  by  events  in  the  twelfth  and 
thirteenth    centuries,   shows   traces    of    the   original 

^  Cronica  maiorinn  et  vicecomitum  Londoniarum  (Camden  Soc),  p.  7. 
The  use  of  the  word  "foro"  is  a  significant  survival  from  language 
which  philologists  should  explain. 

2  Matthew  Paris,  Historia  Major.,  anno  ISCi. 


144  LONDON 

position  of  St  Paul's  as  "  the  church  of  an  exclusive 
body  of  clergy  who  owe  to  the  bishop  more  respect 
than  obedience,"  and  the  history  of  the  cathedral 
"'  has  tended  from  its  foundation  to  make  it  rather  the 
church  of  a  city  than  a  national  or  even  a  diocesan 
church."^  This  is  an  important  addition  to  the 
history  of  London.  The  church  reared  its  magnifi- 
cent fane  for  religious  purposes  above  the  heights  of 
other  buildings  in  the  city,  and,  with  its  extensive 
buildings,  it  was  enclosed  within  walls  and  gates. 
Within  this  great  enclosure  in  the  heart  of  the  city 
was  a  considerable  community,  not  wholly  religious 
in  character  or  action,  and  depending  for  its  economic 
necessities  upon  its  landed  possessions  all  round 
London.  It  was  a  great  social,  economical,  political 
institution,  and  in  1142  there  were  "Barons  of  St 
Paul's."^  It  took  up  in  this  city-life  part  of  the 
position  held  by  the  city  itself  in  Roman  times.  St 
Paul's  divided  with  the  city  governing  authority  the 
inheritance  from  the  Roman  city.  It  was  the  centre 
of  London  hospitalities  in  Plantagenet  days.^  It 
was  encroaching  upon  the  city  position  all  through 
Norman  and  Plantagenet  days,  and  documents  exist 
showing  how  the  struggle  went  on.  In  1285  there 
came  into  the  Guildhall  before  the  mayor,  aldermen, 
and  other  reputable  men  of  the  city,  the  Archdeacon 

1   Victniia  Hist,  of  London,  pp.  409,  420 ;  and  see  my  Governance 
of  London,  pp.  320-322. 

^  Ilisl.  MSS.  Com.,  ix.  p.  40. 

'^  Stubbs'  Inlrodnclions  to  the  Chroniclex,  p.  67. 


THE   INSTITUTION   OF  THE   CITY   145 

and  other  canons  of  St  Paul's,  with  the  king's  writ, 
setting  fortli  a  coniphiint  by  the  Bishop  of  London 
and  the  Dean  and  Chapter  that  Henry  le  Galeys,  at 
the  time  he  was  mayor  of  the  city,  had  erected  liouses 
near  the  wall  of  St  Paul's  churchyard,  "  their  height 
exceeded  the  heiglit  of  the  wall,  and  the  tenants  threw 
dirt  out  of  the  windows  and  doors  into  the  churchyard 
and  walked  to  and  fro  the  churchyard  and  their  houses," 
and  further,  "  that  the  houses  stood  so  near  the  wall 
tliat  their  rain  water  dropped  on  to  the  wall,"  and 
stating  that  "it  is  adjudged  in  our  court  that  the 
houses  be  pulled  down  so  far  as  they  are  prejudicial 
to  the  said  Dean  and  Chapter,"  and  the  city  is  com- 
manded "to  see  the  said  judgment  executed  without 
delay."  ^  In  1352  the  Dean  and  Chapter  are  sum- 
moned to  the  Husting  of  London  "to  shovv^  their 
right  to  enclose  with  doors  a  lane  near  their  church 
in  the  parish  of  St  Faith,  which  was  formerly  the 
king's  highway.  On  Monday  after  the  feast  of  St 
John  ad  Portam  Latinam,  they  produce  a  charter  of 
Henry  III.,  dated  at  Clarendon  on  the  24th  day  of 
November  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  his  reign, 
granting  permission  to  Master  Robert  le  Barton, 
Precentor  of  St  Paul's,  to  enclose  a  lane  which 
formerly  belonged  to  Cecilia  de  Turri  near  St  Paul's, 
provided  that  a  gate  be  placed  at  either  end  of  the 
lane,  with  keys  for  going  in  and  going  out,  in  the 
event  of  fire  or  of  such  other  misfortunes  as  frequently 
occur  in  the  city.     The  Dean  and  Chapter  therefore 

1  Letter  Book,  temp.  Ed.  I.,  pp.  213-4. 

10 


146 


LONDON 


receive  permission  to  maintain  the  enclosure."^  At 
the  pleas  before  the  justices  itinerant  at  the  Tower  of 
London,  Hilary  14  Edward  II.  (1320),  complaint 
was  made  that  the  Dean  and  Chapter  had  enclosed 
with  a  mud  wall  a  piece  of  ground  belonging  to  the 


Ecclesiastical  couil  in  tliiilccnth  century.      l\L))nl  MS!S.  14,  c,  7. 

king  on  which  the  mayor  and  conmionalty  used  to 
hold  their  court,  which  was  called  folkmot,  and  on 
which  was  the  great  bell  tower  which  the  citizens  used 
to  enter  in  order  to  ring  the  great  bell  to  summon 
the  people  ;  and  "the  jury  present  that  the  Dean  and 
Chapter  have  placed  two  wooden  posts  at  the  corner 
of  the  lane  called  Southgate,  which  was  formerly 
open  for  horses  and  carts,  and  have  placed  iron  chains 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  ix.  p.  10. 


THE   INSTITUTION   OF  THE  CITY   147 

with  locks  across  it,"  and  the  Dean  and  Chapter 
again  produced  their  charter  of  Henry  III/  The 
force  of  the  king's  charter  at  the  Court  of  the  Jus- 
tices of  the  Tower  was  of  course  efficient,  but  at  the 
city  Husting  Court  it  was  also  efficient.  The  city, 
as  we  shall  see,  did  not  bow  tamely  to  the  commands 
of  the  sovereign  when  he  attempted  to  override  city 
rights,  and  it  is  a  reasonable  conclusion  that  the 
influence  of  St  Paul's,  as  an  institution  of  the  city, 
operated  in  its  favour.  We  have  here  the  last  stage 
of  the  folkmoot  of  London. 

In  1282  there  was  an  important  agreement  between 
the  Dean  and  Chapter  and  the  Mayor  (Henrie 
Sewallies)  and  citizens  which  further  illustrates  the 
position  of  St  Paul's  in  its  relation  to  the  city,  and 
incidentally  shows  that  the  complaint  of  1285  just 
quoted  was  justified.  It  shows  also  how  the 
Cathedral  was  setting  up  its  walled  enclosure  within 
the  city,  and  with  what  means  it  procured  the  sanction 
of  the  city.  A  suit  was  "  dependinge  by  meanes  of 
certayne  shoppes  builded  aboute  walles  of  the  greate 
churchyearde  of  the  saide  churche  of  St  Paule  was 
apeased  as  followeth,  viz.  that  we,  the  saide  Mayor 
and  the  citizens  of  London,  for  the  good  unitie  of 
peace  to  be  kept  touchinge  the  said  contentions  risen 
by  reason  of  the  same  shoppes  which  shall  remayne 
charged  for  the  liealpe  of  the  buildinge  of  the  bridge 
accordinge  to  the  graunte  of  the  Kinge,  shall  assigne, 
in  a  place  ceartayne  and  meete  in  the  citie  affbresaid 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  ix.  p.  49. 


148  LONDON 

on  this  side  the  Feast  of  St  John  Baptiste  in  free 
preres  and  perpetuall  ahiies  to  God  and  the  churche 
of  St  Paule  in  London,  ten  markes  of  free  and  quiet 
yearely  rentes  towardes  the  newe  buildinge  of  the 
chappie  of  the  blessed  virgine  Mary  at  iiij  common 
tearmes  of  the  yeare  to  be  paide  and  theireof  under 
the  forme  aforesaide  shall  cause  the  said  churche  to 
be  infeofed,  which  deade  of  infeofment  wee  shall 
procure  as  much  as  in  us  liethe  to  be  confirmed  by 
the  Kinge.  Also  wee  shall  assigne  five  markes  of 
like  rentes  unto  a  chapleine  which  shall  selebrate  for 
ever  in  the  chappell  builded  over  the  place  wheare 
the  bones  of  the  deade  use  to  lie  in  the  said  church- 
yearde  for  the  healthe  of  the  said  Lorde  bishope, 
Deane  and  Chapter,  mayor  and  citizens  livinge,  and 
for  the  eternall  rest  of  the  said  benefacters  of  the 
same  churche  of  St  Paule  deceassed.  To  the  which 
chauntuarie  or  chappell  as  often  as  the  same  is  voyde 
the  mayor  of  the  citie  shall  present  a  meate  persoun 
to  the  Deane  of  St  Paules  churche,  and  trewlie  se 
sincere  charitie  to  be  given  and  norished,  as  it  weare 
of  devote  sounes  unto  the  holly  mother  the  cathederall 
churche.  Wee  the  said  mayor  and  citizens  with 
good  Faythe  doe  promise  that  from  henche  fourthe 
wittingeleye  we  shall  doe  or  procure  to  be  doune 
nothinge  uniuste  againste  the  rights  and  liberties 
spirituall  or  tempoorall  of  the  same  our  mother 
churche  of  St  Paule,  but  that  the  said  Lorde  Bishopp, 
Deane,  and  Chapter  may  in  all  thinges  justlie  use 
theire  ould  libertie,  more  over   we   doe   promise   by 


THE   INSTITUTION  OF  THE   CITY    149 

lawful  stipulation  that  we  shall  make  or  cause  to  be 
made  all  inaner  of  drops  of  water  of  the  said  shopes 
to  be  tourned  away  towardes  the  Kinges  hieway,  leaste 
any  doe  distille  into  the  churchyearde  or  uppon  the 
walls  of  the  same,  wheareby  the  same  may  receave 
hurte  or  to  be  made  worse,  and  that  we  shall  nott 
permite  butchers,  poticaris,  gouldsmithes,  cookes,  or 
comon  women  to  dwell  in  the  same  shopps  by  whose 
noyse  or  tumulte  or  dishonestie  the  quietnes  or  devo- 
tion of  the  ministers  of  the  churche  may  be  troubled, 
nor  also  shall  suffer  those  which  shall  dwell  in  the 
said  shopps  to  burne  any  seacooles  in  the  same  or  such 
other  thinges  which  doe  stinke.  More  over  at  our 
owne  charges  we  shall  cause  all  the  coffins  of  the 
bodies  laetlye  buried  in  the  toumbes  or  hollow  places 
of  the  outer  part  of  the  walle,  towardes  the  north  to 
be  decentlie  buryed  or  put  at  the  leaste  in  three  honest 
graves  under  so  many  tombes  or  hollowe  places  in 
the  inner  side  of  the  same  walle,  and  the  said  outward 
toumbes  or  hollowe  places  to  stope  up  with  lime  and 
stone,  moreover  we,  the  said  mayor  and  many  of 
the  Alderemen  of  the  saide  cittie,  as  fer  as  to  our  owne 
persons  dothe  aperteayne,  doe  graunte,  and  with  good 
faythe  doe  promise  to  doe  our  best  indevor  with  the 
commons  of  the  said  cittie,  that  it  may  be  graunted 
unto  the  said  Deane  and  Chapter  tliat  they  may  shutt 
all  the  gaets  of  the  South  Churche  yearde  of  the 
Church  of  St  Paule  every  night  after  courphew  is 
ronge,  so  that  they  shall  be  opened  early  every  day 
againe,  that  we  shall    not  sett,  procure,  or  cause  to 


150  LONDON 

be  sett  any  more  shoppes  without  or  beyonde  the 
boundes  conteyned  in  the  charter  or  deadde  of  our 
Lorde  the  Kinge  for  the  buildinge  of  the  same  shopes 
made,  viz.  beyounde  the  gate  againste  Ivey  Laine 
towardes  the  west."^ 

It  is  important  to  note  that  this  agreement,  dated 
at  Guildhall  on  the  morrow  of  All  Saints  1282,  was 
between  the  mayor  and  citizens,  and  that  the  mayor 

and  aldermen  were  to  do 
their  best  to  persuade  the 
commonalty  to  agree.  The 
action  of  the  mayor  and 
aldermen  is  normal ;  the  in- 
troduction of  the  common- 
J/  alty  to  sanction  what  was 
done,  when  it  was  done,  is  a 
_-^  new  feature  in  documentary 

Later  mayor^alty  seal  of  the  City        ^igtory,  but   probably  not    iu 

actual  practice.  Such  cases 
do  not  disprove  that  the  controlling  force  of  the  city 
was  the  power  of  the  mayor  and  aldermen  and  the 
possession  of  city  courts  of  law. 

The  law  was  the  law  of  London,  not  the  law  of 
the  realm,  and  there  are  cases  which  show  these  two 
systems  in  direct  antagonism.  Thus  there  was  a 
sharp  dispute  arising  out  of  the  charter  of  Edward  I. 
fixing  the  national  weights  to  be  used  for  foreign 
goods  and  merchandise,  the  city  declaring  the  custom 
of  London  "  from  time  immorial "  and  urging  that 

'   Ilisl.  MSS.  Com.,  ix.  \y\y  50-51. 


THE   INSTITUTION   OF  THE   CITY   151 

"we  cannot  nor  ought  to  change  the  customs  of  the 
city."  The  king  promptly  issued  his  writ  insisting  on 
the  city  executing  his  command  and  summoned  the 
mayor  and  sheriffs  to  Westminster/  Again  the 
year  book  of  Edward  II.  reports  a  citizen  pleading 
the  criminal  law  of  the  state  against  the  city 
jurisdiction. 

London  law  has  never  been  codified.  It  comes  to 
us  through  the  recorded  cases,  and  the  cases  are 
adjudicated  according  to  the  tenets  of  unwritten  laws, 
resident  only  in  the  memories  and  teachings  of  the 
civic  authorities.  The  Court  of  Aldermen,  as  it  is 
called  to  this  day,  is  a  unique  municipal  institution. 
It  was  the  administrative  centre  of  London  law,  and 
everywhere  in  the  records  we  find  this  dominant 
note.  It  is  a  remarkable  note.  The  commonalty 
do  not  come  in.  There  is  no  idea  of  the  popular 
legal  assembly  of  the  Anglo-Saxons.  There  is  only 
the  restricted  magistracy  of  the  Court  of  Aldermen. 
Its  English  title  might  have  displaced  the  more 
ancient  Roman  title,  as  JNIr  Coote  has  argued,  but 
Dr  Liebermann's  way  of  putting  the  question  of 
derivation  is  far  more  reasonable.  "  From  a  genetic 
point  of  view  the  names  describing  this  rank  seem  the 
earliest  of  all,  especially  those  which,  founded  on  old 
age  and  its  long  experience,  stand  next  to  nature." - 
This  has  reference  to  the  national  council,  but  it  is 

1  Letter  Boo/c,  temp.  Edward  I.  and  II.,  pp.  1  !27-9. 
^  Liebermann,  The  National  Assembly  in  the  Anglo-Sa.von  Period, 
p.  9. 


152 


LONDON 


equally  applicable  to  that  of  the  city.  Tn  historic 
times  the  distinction  of  age  gave  way  to  that  of 
superiority — the  chief  men.  The  institution  in  its 
working  form  is  distinctly  non-English.  Its  powers 
are  very  considerable,  and  entirely  of  its  own  choos- 
ing. It  deals  with  the  recalcitrant  citizen,  with  the 
fraudulent  tradesman,  and  with  the  intruding  at- 
tempts of  the  crown 
and  the  king's 
courts  of  justice. 
All  through  the 
Norman  and  Planta- 
genet  period  its 
power  is  strongly 
felt.  It  crops  up 
at  all  points  where 
attempts  are   made 

Baker  at  work,  Guildhall  MSS.,  assisa paiiis.  .  extend         the 

powers  of  other  branches  of  the  city  institutions,  and 
it  continues  its  power  until  the  end. 

A  second  controlling  force  was  through  the  agency 
of  the  gilds.  The  question  of  the  origin  of  gilds 
has  always  been  a  disputed  point  among  authorities, 
and  I  differ  from  them  all.  There  is  wanted  in  the 
first  place  a  vera  causa  for  their  establishment.  Why 
was  the  gild  organisation  required  if  the  city  organisa- 
tion was  still  in  existence,  was  still  powerful  ?  Apart 
from  the  fascinating  proposition  that  gilds  come 
direct  from  the  Roman  collegia,  for  which  I  see  no 
sufficient  evidence,  there  are  two  periods,  the  Anglo- 


THE   INSTITUTION  OF  THE  CITY   153 

Saxon  and  the  Norman,  which  are  referred  to  by 
different  authorities  as  pre-eminently  the  birth-time 
of  the  EngUsh  gild.  We  may  talk  of  the  English 
gild,  because  it  is  generally  recognised  as  a  peculiarly 
English  institution  in  origin,  and  English  also  in  its 
growth  and  continuation.  But  we  may  not  give  to 
it  anything  more  than  a  subordinate  place  in  London 


Baker  drawn  to  pillory,  Guildhall  MSS. ,  assisa pajiis. 

governance.  It  is  English,  therefore,  in  the  same 
manner  as  we  have  seen  other  English  innovations 
within  the  city  system  of  London. 

I  have  indicated  already  that  in  my  opinion  the 
great  city  law  of  King  Athelstan's  time  may  be  taken 
as  the  origin  of  the  gild  system.^  Two  things  were 
happening  in  London  at  the  time  when  London  took 
the  momentous  step  of  getting  royal  approval  to  this 

^  See  also  Toulmin  Smith's  English  Gilds,  Brentano's  intro- 
duction, p.  xcix. 


154  LONDON 

London  law.  One  of  these  things  was  that  the 
organisation  of  the  country  on  the  Anglo-Saxon 
tribal  system,  based  upon  kinship  law  and  rights, 
and  not  upon  individual  law  and  rights,  had  passed 
from  the  administration  of  purely  tribal  matters  to 
matters  affecting  citizenship,  which  were  not  tribal. 
The  second  of  these  things  was  that  the  burghal 
organisation  of  the  English  towns  was  based  upon 
this  same  kinship  system,  and  having  made  them 
into  agricultural  communities  of  the  English  type,  as 
at  York,  Colchester,  Winchester,  Lincoln,  and  other 
places  founded  on  Roman  sites,  it  was  being  used 
for  the  protection  of  their  developing  trade.  The 
burghal  organisation  did  not  quite  satisfy  the  condi- 
tions of  this  dual  condition  of  life  as  between  city 
and  village  community.  Burghers  in  trade  could  not 
meet  agriculturists,  who  were  also  tribal  kinsmen, 
upon  equal  terms,  and  the  institution  of  the  gild  was 
an  absolute  necessity. 

In  London  the  difficulty  was  of  a  different  kind. 
London  was  not  Englished  as  York  and  other  cities 
were  Englished.  She  was  still  organised  upon  city 
lines.  She  still,  as  we  have  seen,  retained  much  of 
her  actual  Roman  machinery  of  government.  But 
into  her  city  life  had  penetrated  the  incoming  Saxon. 
The  leading  Saxons  conformed  readily  enough  to 
London  city  law,  became  Londoners  by  faith  as  well 
as  by  desire.  The  lesser  folk  came  into  London 
carrying  with  them,  as  we  have  also  seen,  their  English 
customs  and  ideas,  their  folkmoot,  and  their  restless 


THE   INSTITUTION   OF  THE  CITY   155 

criticism  of  affairs  into  which  their  hves  did  not  enter. 
These  lesser  folk  were  the  danger  to  the  city  organisa- 
tion, and  I  have  pointed  out  tliat  the  city  law  in 
meeting  this  danger  met  it  by  a  piece  of  magnificently 
bold  statesmanship  in  the  institution  of  an  organisation 
of  artificial  kinship,  suitable  for  the  city  requirements, 
but  which  did  not  belong  to  city  institutions  as  they 
had  come  down  from  the  ages. 

It  changed  its  note,  but  not  its  purpose,  as  the 
centuries  rolled  on.  The  city  had  new  difificulties 
to  meet.  The  Norman  sokes  were  eating  into  the 
organisation  of  the  city.  The  royal  sanction  to 
foreign  traders  was  not  in  accord  with  the  interests 
of  the  city,  as  the  city  understood  its  interests.  And 
so  the  foeship  of  the  earliest  gild  passed  into  the 
protective  commercial  clauses  of  the  later  gilds. 
Gilds  in  both  cases  were  up  against  something  to 
which  the  city  was  opposed.  Foeship  was  still  the 
note,  not  friendship,  and  in  order  to  gain  the  key 
not  only  to  the  origin  of  gilds,  but  to  their  opera- 
tions and  their  development,  this  must  be  kept  in 
mind. 

The  development  of  the  gilds  could  never  have 
been  quite  an  easy  matter  in  London.  The  mayor 
and  aldermen  had  always  regulated  trading  and 
commercial  matters,  and  now  that  trade  and  com- 
merce were  becoming  more  and  more  specialised 
under  the  genius  of  the  Norman  Londoners,  the 
gild  institution  claimed  to  be  utilised  for  a  new 
purpose.     Before  the   Norman  house  had  passed  its 


156  LONDON 

rule  on  to  the  Plantagenets  we  see  the  struggle 
commencing.  For  instance,  it  took  place  with  the 
weavers.  This  gild  had  obtained  from  Henry  I. 
the  privilege  that  nobody,  except  by  becoming  a 
member  of  the  gild,  shall  introduce  himself  within 
the  city  into  their  mystery,  and  nobody  within 
Southwark,  or  other  places  belonging  to  London, 
except  he  be  a  member  of  their  gild,  and  these 
privileges  were  confirmed  by  Henry  H.  The  city 
rebelled  against  these  privileges.  King  John  tried 
to  suppress  the  gild  by  the  city  paying  twenty  marks 
in  money  for  a  gift  in  place  of  the  eighteen  marks 
paid  by  the  gild.  That  this  proceeding  did  not 
succeed  is  shown  by  what  happened  as  early  as 
1221-22,  when  the  weavers,  as  Maddox  relates, 
"  fearing  lest  the  mayor  and  citizens  of  London 
should  extort  from  them  their  charter  and  liberties 
granted  to  them  by  King  Henry  II.,  delivered  that 
charter  into  the  Exchequer,  to  be  kept  in  the  Treasury 
there,  and  to  be  delivered  to  them  again  when  they 
should  Avant  it,  and  afterwards  to  be  laid  up  in  the 
Treasury." 

This  interesting  case  shows  the  changes  which  were 
taking  place.  The  crown  and  its  advisers  cared  not 
for  city  institutions  as  London  had  inherited  them. 
They  cared  for  sokes  and  privileged  groups,  not  for  a 
great  and  powerful  city.  They  did  not  win  in  the 
fight,  however.  Citizenship  and  gildship  resided  very 
much  in  the  same  personalities.  We  find  the  city  exer- 
cising functions  wherever  the  gilds  did  not,  or  could 


THE   INSTITUTION   OF  THE  CITY   157 

not,  exercise  them  ;  the  city  came  to  the  assistance  of 
the  gilds  when  tliey  had  to  fight  against  a  non-gilds- 
man  on  questions  of  privilege ;  the  city  resisted  the 
attempts  of  the  crown  to  control  trading  matters,  and 
boldly  declared  that  where  gilds  or  traders  went  wrong 
city  law  was  sufficient  to  deal  with  the  delinquents. 
And  in  this  way  we  get  the  gradual  working  together 
of  city  and  gilds,  the  encroachment  of  gildship  upon 
the  more  ancient  free  citizenship  ;  finally  the  welding 
of  the  gild  organisation  with  the  city  organisation. 
The  victory  therefore  is  largely,  not  completely,  with 
the  gilds.  But  let  us  note  that  if  it  is  victory,  the 
victory  of  an  English  institution  over  a  city  institution 
which  was  not  English,  there  is  no  evidence  whatever 
in  London,  though  there  is  in  other  English  cities,  of 
a  development  of  municipal  into  gild  organisation. 
It  is  struggle  all  through,  and  though  the  gilds  won 
their  position  they  did  not  destroy  municipal  power, 
municipal  tradition,  or  municipal  law. 

This  is  demonstrable  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
records.  The  weavers  might  claim  a  royal  charter, 
but,  royal  charter  or  not,  they  had  to  obey  city  law. 
The  power  and  process  of  city  law  is  to  be  seen 
in  actual  working.  A  writ  comes  from  Henry  V. 
(5th  February  1416-17)  to  the  mayor  and  aldermen, 
that  they  take  measures  for  the  strict  observance  of 
the  ordinance  or  agreement  presenting  the  particular 
kind  of  work  to  be  executed  severally  by  cordewaners 
and  cobelers,  and  that  they  punish  offenders  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  terms  of  the  said  ordinance  and  the 


158 


LONDON 


custom  of  the  city.^  The  answer  of  the  city  is  decisive. 
It  was  made  by  Richard  Merlawe,  the  mayor,  and  the 
aldermen,  and  was  to  the  effect  that  by  immemorial 
custom  of  the  city  the  mayor  and  aldermen  were  in 
the  habit  of  causing  any  ordinance  affecting  artificers 
in  the  city  which  proved  to  be  prejudicial  to  the 
common  good  to  cease  to  be  observed.  This  was 
followed  by  a  still  more  drastic  step.  On  6th  January 
1417-18   the  ordinance  was    annulled    at   a   general 

court  held  at  the  Guildhall, 
"  inasmuch  as  it  was  contrary 
to  the  commonweal."^  City 
immemorial  custom,  not  king's 
writ  or  king's  law,  is  the 
controlling  power ;  common 
good,  not  gild  ordinances,  is 
the  governing  factor ;  and  in 
this  single  example  the  whole 
case  of  city  government  and  gild  organisation  is 
contained. 

Common  good  included  the  strictest  line  of  honesty 
in  trade.  Many  entries  in  the  city  archives  certify  to 
this,  and  the  pillory  and  the  stocks  are  brought  into 
requisition  against  those  who  do  not  conform  to  the 
city  standard  of  conduct.  In  1352  an  ordinance  had 
been  in  existence  since  the  reign  of  Edward  I.  pre- 
scribing that  "fishmongers  of  the  city  of  I^ondon  and 


Fourteenlii  v.-;Aai_-,  ;u.a  uf  the 
Lord  Mayor  of  London. 


1  Calendar  of  Letter  Books,  vol.   i.   p.  187.      Cf.  Riley,,  Memorials 
of  London  Life,  pp.  571-4,  for  the  original  ordinance. 

2  Calendar,  op.  cit.,  p.  194. 


THE   INSTITUTION   OF  THE  CITY   159 

their  partners  should  see  that  then*  baskets,"  inter 
alia,  were  not  "dubbed,  that  is  to  say,  have  good  fish 
placed  at  the  top  and  inferior  kind  placed  beneath 
them"  ;  and  in  1354  an  entry  notifies  the  appointment, 
"  by  the  good  folk  of  the  craft,"  of  three  "  girdlers 
and  citizens  of  London  to  rule  and  survey  the  said 
craft,  that  it  be  well  and  properly  preserved  in  all 
points."^  I  must  quote  one  other  example  because 
of  the  interest  of  the  subject  matter.  In  1374 
"  Henry  Gierke,  John  Dyke,  William  Tanner,  and 
Thomas  Lucy,  tapicers  and  masters  of  the  trade  of 
tapicers  in  London,  caused  to  be  brought  here  a  coster 
of  tapestry  wrought  upon  the  loom  after  the  manner 
of  w^ork  of  arras  and  made  of  false  work  by  Katharine 
Duchewoman  in  her  house  at  Fynkslane,  being  4 
yards  in  length  and  7  quarters  in  breadth :  seeing 
that  she  had  made  it  of  linen  thread  beneath  but 
covered  with  wool  above  in  deceit  of  the  people  and 
against  the  ordinance  of  the  trade  aforesaid,  and  they 
asked  that  the  coster  might  be  adjudged  to  be  false, 
and  for  that  reason  burnt  according  to  the  form  of 
the  articles  of  their  trade  as  here  in  the  Chamber 
enrolled."^  The  mayor,  recorder,  and  certain  of  the 
aldermen  heard  and  decided  the  case  against  the 
false  tapestry. 

Entries  such  as  these  are  frequent,^  and  that  the 

1  Letter  Book,  1350-1370,  pp.  64,  Q9. 
-  Riley,  Memorials  oj  London,  p,  375. 

^  Another  good  instance  relating  to  the   same  gild   in    1344  is 
given  in  Letter  Book;  1337-1352,  p.  99. 


160  LONDON 

officers  of  mediteval  I^ondon  were  expected  to  be 
as  free  from  interested  influences  as  are  those  of 
this  age,  the  following  regulation  of  1419  will  show, 
by  comparison  with  the  "  Act  for  the  better  pre- 
vention of  corruption "  passed  in  the  sixth  year  of 
King  Edward  VII.  (cap.  34):  "Forasmuch  as  it  is 
not  becoming  or  agreeable  to  propriety  that  those 
who  are  in  the  service  of  reverend  men,  and  from 
them  or  through  them  have  the  advantage  of  befit- 
ting food  and  raiment,  as  also  of  reward  or  remunera- 
tion in  a  competent  degree,  should  after  a  perverse 
custom  be  begging  aught  of  people  like  paupers  ;  and 
seeing  that  in  times  past  every  year  at  the  Feast 
of  Our  Lord's  Nativity,  according  to  a  certain  custom 
which  has  grown  to  be  an  abuse,  the  vadlets  of  the 
Mayor,  the  Sheriffs,  and  the  Chamber  of  the  said  city 
— persons  who  have  food,  raiment,  and  appropriate 
advantages  resulting  from  their  office — under  colour 
of  asking  for  an  oblation,  have  begged  many  sums 
of  money  of  brewers,  bakers,  cooks,  and  other 
victuallers,  and  in  some  instances  have  more  than 
once  threatened  wrongfully  to  do  them  an  injury  if 
they  should  refuse  to  give  them  something ;  and 
have  frequently  made  promises  to  others  that,  in 
return  for  a  present,  they  would  pass  over  their 
unlawful  doings  in  much  silence,  to  the  great  dis- 
honour of  their  masters,  and  to  the  common  loss  of 
all  the  city  " ;  and  then  follows  the  penalty,  which  is 
loss  of  office.^ 

^  Riley,  Memorials  of  London,  p.  670. 


THE   INSTITUTION  OF  THE   CITY   161 

That  the  city  looked  after  the  personal  require- 
ments is  shown  by  several  amusing  cases,  of  which  I 
will  quote  one.  Letters  patent  under  the  seal  of  the 
mayoralty  were  issued,  .39  Edward  III.  (130.5),  "cer- 
tifying that  John  de  Radeclive,  born  in  the  parish  of 
St  Botolph  without  Aldersgate,  had  a  portion  of  his 
left  ear  bitten  off  by  a  savage  horse  belonging  to  his 
master,  and  in  order  that  his  character  might  not 
suffer  by  incurring  the  suspicion  of  his  having  been 
punished  for  theft  or  other  matter,  the  said  John 
had  prayed  them  to  testify  to  the  truth,  which  they 
hereby  do."^ 

Plantagenet  London  was  a  city  enclosed  by  its 
walls,  kept  in  order  by  the  citizens.  It  is  de- 
scribed in  many  passages  in  the  Chronicles.  The 
city  records  contain  priceless  evidence  of  the  topo- 
graphy of  inner  London  through  documents  pre- 
sented at  the  Hustings  Court,  and  those  read  in 
the  Guildhall  before  the  mayor,  and  perhaps  the 
inquisition  "as  to  who  is  or  are  bound  by  right 
to  repair  the  bridge  of  Walebrok  near  Boke- 
relesbre"  of  1291  is  one  of  the  best  examples.^ 
The  public  records  would  yield  a  great  many  facts 
for  extra  London  topography  if  they  could  be 
collated  and  arranged  for  such  a  purpose.  Thus, 
among  the  charters  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancas- 
ter (1174.-1189)  is  a  grant  in  fee  to  Henry  de 
Cornhell  of  a  "  mill  next  to  the  Tower  of  London 

1  Letter  Book,  1350-1370,  p.  125. 

-  Letter  Book,  temp.  Ed.  I.,  pp.  177-179. 

II 


162  LONDON 

in  Stebbehive."^  In  a  petition  to  Parliament  at 
Carlisle  in  35  Edward  I.  the  Earl  of  Lincoln  stated 
that  in  old  times  ten  or  twelve  ships  used  often  to 
come  up  to  Fleet  Bridge  with  merchandise,  and  some 
even  to  Holborn  Bridge.^  Manorial  records  form  a 
third  source  of  information  on  this  subject,  and  that 
they  relate  wholly  to  extra  London  and  not  to  the 
city  is  an  important  fact.  They  give  evidence  of 
the  usual  kind,  and  where  they  have  been  examined 
in  detail,  as  in  the  case  of  the  manor  of  Tooting  Bee, 
they  yield  not  only  topographical  but  historical  and 
economic  information  of  great  value.^ 

One  further  illustration  of  this  period  must  be 
noted.  London  has  begun  to  take  rank  among 
historians  with  other  English  cities,  and  no  longer 
stands  alone.  In  the  chronicle  of  Richard  of  Devizes 
there  is  a  remarkable  picture  of  English  cities  of  the 
time  of  King  John,  that  is,  toward  the  end  of  the 
twelfth  century,  which  is  sufficiently  useful  to  quote. 
A  vile  French  Jew  recommends  an  unfortunate  young 
cobbler  to  pass  through  LiOndon  quickly,  since  every 
nation  has  introduced  into  that  city  its  vices  and  bad 
manners.  He  is  to  avoid  Canterbury,  because  the 
shrine  of  the  lately  canonised  archbishop  attracted 
crowds  of  vagrants :  "  Everywhere  they  die  in  open 
day  by  the  streets  for  want  of  bread  and  employment. 

1  Report  of  Deputy  Keeper  of  Public  Records,  xxxv.  p.  1 6. 

2  Rot.  Pari.,  i.  p.  200,  No.  59,  quoted  in  Stanley's  Mm.  of  West- 
minster, p.  f). 

^   The    Manor  Ro/Lv  of   Tooling  Bee,   published    by    the    London 
County  Council 


THE    INSTITUTION    OF   THE    (TTY    1(>:? 

Rochester  and  Chichester  are  mere  \illages.  and  tliey 
possess  nothing  for  which  they  should  be  called  cities 
but  the  sees  of  tlieir  bishops.  Oxford  scarcely  sus- 
tains its  clerks.  Exeter  supports  men  and  beasts  with 
the  same  grain.  Bath  is  placed,  or  rather  buried,  in 
the  lowest  parts  of  the  valleys  in  a  very  dense  atmo- 
sphere and  sulphury  vapour,  as  it  were  at  the  gates 
of  Hell.  Nor  yet  will  you  select  your  habitation  in 
the  northern  cities — Worcester,  Chester,  Hereford — 
on  account  of  the  desperate  Welshmen.  York 
abounds  in  Scots,  vile  and  faithless  men,  or  rather 
rascals.  The  town  of  Ely  is  always  putrefied  by  the 
surrounding  marshes."  He  then  goes  on  to  advise 
the  poor  apprentice  cobbler  not  to  visit  Durham, 
Norwich,  Lincoln,  Bristol,  nor  the  rural  districts — 
especially  Cornwall — and  finally  directs  him  to  Win- 
chester, which  is  "  the  city  of  cities,  the  mother  of 
all,  the  best  of  all."^  It  is  only  by  scraps  of  history 
like  this  that  we  can  ascertain  how  London  was  re- 
garded at  this  time." 

We  are  at  a  half  stage  here.  We  cannot  quite 
understand  it  in  its  relationship  to  what  has  preceded 
it  and  what  will  follow  it.  A  charter-granting 
sovereign,  a  sovereign  who  sends  writs  to  the  city  on 
questions  of  city  governance  ;  a  city  which  is  working 
through  a  gild  system  as  distinct  from  a  municipal 

1  Richard  of  Devizes,  De  Rebus  Gestis  Ricardi  primi,  Rolls  edit., 
vol.  iii.  pp.  1.37-8. 

2  There  is  an  interesting  description  of  Plantagenet  London  in 
the  Introduction  to  the  Chronujues  de  London  44  Henry  III.  to  17 
Edw.  III.  (Camden  Soc),  pp.  xi-xviii. 


164  LONDON 

system,  a  city  which  has  its  immemorial  custom 
converted  into  charter  grants — is  evidently  different 
from  what  it  was  in  Anglo-Saxon  times.  The 
extent  of  such  difference  and  its  effect  upon  the 
Hfe  of  London  must  be  the  subject  of  an  additional 
chapter. 


CHAPTER   VII 


CITY    AND    STATE 


After  the  institution  of  the  city  within  the  state 
there  were  still  things  to  be  worked  out.  It  is 
important  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  working-out  of 


.^ 


Seal  of  Henry  II. 


the  problem  is  by  the  city,  and  not  through  the 
commanding  statecraft  of  the  sovereign  power — 
neither  king  nor  parliament.  It  is  a  pure  working- 
out  between  the  city  and  the  state.  Our  commenc- 
ing point  is  the  relationship  between  the  city  and 
the  representative  of  the  state,  the  sovereign  king. 
Plantagenet  kings  took  their  share  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  kingdom,  meeting  difficulties  of  all  kinds 
in  the  whirlpool  of  continental  events.  They  were 
not  men  to  stand  much  trifling,  to  bow  to  powers 

165 


166 


LONDON 


Seal  of  Henry  III. 


within  the  realm  which  claimed,  or  acted  as  if  they 
claimed,  a  sort  of  equality  with  them.  And  yet 
this  is  what  we  see  going  on.  The  strong  hand  of 
Henry  II.  and  Edward  I.,  the  unscrupulous  hand 
iT^^'?!^'.  of  Henry  III.,  took  the  city 

sadly  to  task,  and  we  seem  to 
see  it  bending  to  the  sovereign 
will.  But  its  time  came  again. 
Corporations  never  die,  and 
kings  do.  The  last  of  the 
Plantagenets,  bold,  brave,  able 
as  he  was,  bent  the  knee  to 
London,  and  in  his  person,  as 
he  is  outlined  by  Shakespeare,  is  shown  the  con- 
tinuity of  city  polity  right  down  to  the  end  of  the 
feudal  period. 

It  is  quite  true  to  say  that  the  chief  evidence  for 
this  is  derived  from   the  weak  ,«^,,  _^ 

places  in  English  sovereignty, 
but  it  is  not  true  to  assume 
from  this  that  London  was 
simply  taking  advantage  of 
these  fax'ourable  opportunities 
to  advance  unconstitutional 
claims.  As  we  are  reminded 
by    Mr    Lucas,    Sir    Matthew 

Hale  declared  that  he  was  unable  to  understand 
the  form  oP  government  anterior  to  Henry  III., 
and  Holborne,  the  junior  counsel  in  Hampden's 
great  case,  said  with  considerable  justification  that  the 


Seal  of  Henry  III. 


CITY    AND   STATE  107 

gov^ernnient  in  those  early  times  was  more  by  force 
than  by  hiw.^  Under  the  Norman  and  Plantagenet 
sovereignty  we  find  the  claim  of  London  to  take  a 
prominent  part  in  the  election  of  the  king  to  be 
silently  exercised  and  silently  acquiesced  in.  If  the 
kings  with  strong  personalities  and  with  unquestioned 
right  of  succession  by  inheritance  minimised  the  city's 
claim  or  ignored  it,  the  city  answered  by  accepting 
this  situation  and  awaiting  new  opportunities.  And 
when  the  position  of  the  king  was  weak,  and  London's 
help  was  needed,  the  help  was  given  on  the  ancient 
and  accepted  lines.  In  the  case  of  Stephen,  London 
may  have  overstepped  the  ancient  lines,  but  even 
here  we  shall  not  find  a  misuse  of  the  power,  and  we 
shall  not  find  later  examples  improving  upon  or  even 
following  this  precedent.  In  every  direction  the 
working  of  the  city  institution  was  normal,  and  it 
corresponded  with  the  working  of  the  sovereign 
institution. 

The  new  and  imposing  policy  to  be  introduced  by 
William,  the  great  conqueror,  has  been  noted.  It 
was  ushered  in  by  a  strict  conforming  to  ancient 
custom,  and  the  English  cry  of  "  Aye,  aye "  at  the 
coronation  ceremony  was  the  formal  acceptance  by 
London  of  the  new  sovereign.  Once  more  the  king 
accepted  by  the  nation  became  the  king  accepted  by 
London.  There  is  nothing  of  importance  to  mark 
the  acceptance  of  the  next  two  monarchs,  but  the 
election  of  Stephen   to    be   king   was   a   remarkable 

1   W.  W.  LucaSj  The  Corporate  Nalure  of  E7iglisk  Sovereignty,  p.  3. 


168  LONDON 

event.  Freeman  will  have  it  that  London,  on  this 
and  similar  occasions,  represented  the  nation — the 
nation  assembled  at  London  ;  but  there  is  little  or  no 
direct  evidence  of  this,  and  the  contrary  evidence  of 
London  exercising  ancient  surviving  city  rights  is 
overwhelming.  No  doubt  in  this  case  London  went 
too  far.  It  entered  on  the  task  of  election  instead 
of  keeping  to  that  of  acceptance  of  the  duly  elected 
king ;  but  in  William  of  Malmesbury's  account  of 
Matilda's  temporarily  successful  attempt  to  assume 
the  position  of  empress,  we  are  brought  back  again 
to  the  position  of  the  sovereign  obtaining  the 
acquiescence  of  London.  The  story  may  be  stated 
briefly.  The  Anglo-Saocoii  Chronicle,  a.d.  1135,  is 
the  first  authority.  "  Stephen  de  Blois  came  to 
London ;  and  the  London  folk  received  him,  and 
sent  after  the  archbishop  William  Curboil  and  con- 
secrated him  king  on  midwinter  day."  The  exten- 
sion of  this  record  occurs  in  the  Gesta  Stephani,  and 
it  is  deliberately  stated  that  "  the  aldermen  and  wise 
folk  gathered  together  the  folkmoot,  and  there,  pro- 
viding at  their  own  will  for  the  good  of  the  realm, 
unanimously  resolved  to  choose  a  king,"  which  solemn 
deliberation  ended  in  the  choice  of  Stephen.  There 
can  be  no  question  that  this  ceremony  was  an  election. 
Stephen's  charter  of  1136  opens  with  the  words,  "  Ego 
Stephanus  Dei  gratia  assensu  cleri  et  populi  in  regem 
Anglorum  electus,"  and  he  alludes  to  this  election  in 
his  passionate  outburst  against  those  who  revolted 
against  him  in  1137. 


CITY   AND    STATE  169 

It  will  be  noted  that  London  acted  through  the 
folkmoot.  It  is  not  possible  to  say  what  the  precise 
meaning  of  this  is,  having  regard  to  what  has  been 
already  said  about  the  folkmoot  and  its  subordinate 
position  in  city  institutions,  but  it  is  at  least  likely 
that  it  was  used  on  this  occasion  to  further  the 
particular  end  desired.  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
remarkable  proceedings  in  1141  recorded  by  William 
of  JMalmesbury,  when  JNlatilda  had  achieved  her 
temporary  success  in  the  field  and  sought  to  be 
proclaimed  empress.  The  Londoners  were  sent  for 
because  from  the  importance  of  their  city  in  England 
they  were  almost  nobles  {quasi  opti?Jiafes),  and  when 
the  Londoners  came  they  explained  that  they  were 
sent  from  the  community  of  London  to  ask  for  the 
liberation  of  King  Stephen. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  the  details  further. 
They  show  at  every  point  that  London  claimed  to 
have  the  sovereign  that  had  been  elected  by  them, 
and  not  the  sovereign  who  claimed  by  the  right  of 
victory  and  by  the  support  given  to  her  by  the  pope. 
They  show  London  to  be  successful  in  the  end. 
They  show  the  optimates  of  London  and  not  the 
folkmoot  to  be  the  governing  power,  and  they  give 
an  altogether  remarkable  picture  of  a  definite  and 
constitutional  relationship  between  London  the  city 
and  the  national  sovereign. 

Through  all  the  subsequent  dynastic  troubles 
London  is  ever  in  the  fore,  though  never  again  in 
quite  so  strong  a  position.     It  took  part  in  the  formal 


170 


LONDON 


Seal  of  Richard  III. 


deposition  of  Richard  II.  ;  it  helped  Henry  IV.  to 
the  throne ;  it  acted  in  such  a  way  at  the  choosing  of 
Richard  III.  as  to  provide  Shakespeare  with  an  ever- 
memorable  scene.  This  was 
the  last  act  in  a  very  long 
series.  It  was  purely  artificial, 
obviously  got  up  to  serve  a 
purpose.  The  very  fact  that 
it  could  have  been  appealed 
to  on  such  an  occasion,  and 
in  such  a  fashion,  is  evidence 
that  the  resort  to  the  old 
formula,  when  it  could  have  been  nothing  but  a 
formula,  shows  how  strong  and  how  important  the 
formula  had  been. 

Against  these  examples  of  success  in  exercising 
ancient  rights  has  to  be  set 
the  witness  of  London  in- 
dubitably struggling  against 
what  it  believed  to  be  an  in- 
sidious innovation  upon  its 
older  independence.  The 
struggle  was  long  and  con- 
tinuous, but  never  factious 
and  petty.  This  is  illustrated 
in  several  ways,  and  in  the  relationship  of  the  city 
to  the  Tower  of  London  we  see  the  process  at  work 
in  a  singularly  curious  manner.  The  city  will  not 
attend  at  the  Tower  except  under  very  definite 
protective  rights,  and  with  very  definite  ceremonial 


Seal  of  Richard  III. 


CITY    AND    STATK 


171 


conditions.  Tlie  Tower  is  not  only  the  king's  as  a 
defensive  protection  to  London  from  the  Thames 
side,  but  it  is  a  symbol,  and  an  effective  and  operative 
symbol,  of  the  king's  power 
against  the  city.  The  Planta- 
genet  king  sought  by  increas- 
ing the  strength  of  the  Tower 
to  bring  the  city  under  his 
control.  The  citizens  deter- 
mined otherwise.     They  could 


not  decline   to    recognise   the 


Seal  uf  Edward  II. 


Tower.  It  was  a  constitutional 
institution  as  well  as  a  military  fortress.  But  their 
precautions  were  full  and  significant.  They  would 
not  step  from  citizen  groimd  to  king's  ground 
without   protection,    and    in   the   end    we   have    the 

remarkable  fact  that  the  citi- 
zens imposed  their  rules  upon 
the  Tower  authorities  when 
they  were  required  to  enter 
the  Tower,  and  they  imposed 
rules  when  the  sovereign 
wanted  to  enter  the  city,  rules 
which  Queen  Victoria  and 
King  Edward  obeyed  as  in- 
teresting survivals  of  London's  ancient  position. 
London  indeed  was  never  the  seat  of  so\ereignty 
under  English  rule,  and  we  get  a  touch  of  realism 
on  this  point  in  a  letter  from  Edward  IL  to  Aylmer 
de  Valence  desiring  his  attendance  at  Westminster 


Seal  of  Edward  II. 


172 


LONDON 


.-i3«S7^?lKr3r-% 


to  advise  on  certain  matters,  and  directing  him  to 
come  by  Lambeth,  where  boats  shall  be  prepared 
to  carry  him  to  the  palace/      The  city  understood 

well  enough  the  policy  of  the 
state.      A  great    monarch  like 
I  u  \w>,^    Edward    L,   powerful    because 
r*  !  /  TC     '^^  ^^^  never  tyrannical,  would 

2^1 15^!,        ^^  idi^Q  command  of  the  city  into 

\^.^fih.'^  l^is    o^,n    hands,    teach    it    the 

lesson  of  obedience  to  the  state, 
and  then  restore  it  to  its  proper 
Se  111  II.  measure    of    civic    status.      A 

tyrant  monarch,  as  John  and  Henry  IIL  were, 
would  act  quite  differently,  and  would  act  from  the 
Tower.  Few  things  are  more  remarkable  in  civic 
history  than  the  events  which 
stand  out  from  these  typical 
episodes.  Even  the  bound- 
aries of  the  Tower  and  its 
precincts  had  to  be  precise)} 
set  out  for  constitutional  pur- 
poses. They  are  described  in 
a  document  of  4  Richard  IL 
as  follows  :  "  The  Franchise  of 
the  Tower  stretcheth  from  the 
water  side  unto  the  end  of  Pety  Wales  to  the 
end  of  Tower  Streete,  and  so  streight  North  unto 
a  mud  wall  ;  and  from  thence  straight  East  unto  the 
wall  of  the  Cittie ;  and  from  thence  to  the  Posterne 

1  Report  of  Deputy  Keeper  of  Public  Records,  viii.  p.  184. 


Seal  ut  Richard  II. 


Z  -5 

O  X 

Z  J2 

O        00 

> 
<d 

o   g 
^  i 

O  u, 
H 

X 


CITY    AND    STATE  173 

South  ;  and  from  thence  straight  to  a  great  Elme, 
before  the  abbot  of  Tower  hills  rent ;  and  from 
thence  to  an  other  Elme  standing  upon  the  Tower 
ditch ;  and  from  that  Elme  alonge  by  a  mud  wall 
streight  forth  into  Thamys."'  And  this  question 
of  boundary  was  important  in  many  ways,  settling 
amongst  other  things  the  jurisdiction  of  the  city  and 
the  king  in  legal  cases.  It  arose  on  several  occasions, 
and  there  are  curious  accounts  of  boundary  disputes 
in  1582  and  1G2G  which  illustrate  the  necessity  for 
the  formal  determination  of  its  limits." 

One  other  feature  in  illustration  of  the  relationship 
of  city  and  state  must  be  referred  to.  The  method 
of  trading  by  intermunicipal  agreement  instead  of  by 
national  law^  has  been  noted  in  connection  with  its 
obvious  parallel  to  the  methods  of  the  Roman  cities 
of  the  Empire  under  Roman  law.  It  was  in  force 
during  the  Anglo-Saxon  period,  and  did  not  originate 
in  Anglo-Saxon  polity.  It  was  in  force  during 
Norman  and  Plantagenet  times  simply  by  way  of 
continuation  of  a  well-understood  practice,  and  because 
the  state  had  imposed  no  other  method.  The  later 
practice  can  be  illustrated  from  city  documents.  From 
these  it  is  clear  that  the  definite  and  clear  sanction 
for  the  recovery  of  citizens'  goods  or  debts  was  reprisal 
— and  municipal,  not  personal,  reprisal.  The  English 
state  had  not  entered  into  this  question,  perhaps  was 
not  conscious  of  its  existence,  or  at  all  events  of  the 

^  Arc/uvologia,  vol.  xviii.  p.  280. 

-  Remembrancia,  ])p.  434  and  44.)  ;  and  see  Letter  liuuk,  vol.  i.  p.  3. 


174  LONDON 

necessity  of  bringing  it  within  the  law  of  the  hind. 
In  this  way  London  and  the  cities  fell  back  upon  the 
provisions  of  Roman  law,  and  there  cannot  be  a 
doubt  that  in  London  at  least  these  provisions  had 
obtained  continuously  from  Roman  times. 

It  is  worth  while  showing  the  actual  working  of 
this  institution  from  a  few  examples  selected  from 
the  Calendar  of  Letters,  1350-1370,  published  by  the 
corporation  of  the  city  of  London.  The  mayor, 
aldermen,  and  commonalty  of  the  city  of  London 
write  to  the  city  of  Florence  in  1350-1  that  Gregorio 
Bonacursi,  citizen  of  London,  "  had  complained  of 
having,  to  his  no  small  loss  and  prejudice,  had  a  large 
quantity  of  merchandise  which  he  had  sent  into  their 
country  seized  by  certain  men,  as  it  were  sons  of 
iniquity,  not  having  God  before  their  eyes  and  wishing 
to  stir  up  strife ;  and  whereas  he  had  demanded  that 
satisfaction  should  be  made  to  him  of  persons  and 
goods  within  the  city  of  London,  both  present  and 
to  come,  they  are  earnestly  desired  to  cause  the 
aforesaid  merchandise  to  be  restored,  otherwise  they 
must  not  complain  if  their  countrymen  be  made  to 
indemnify  the  said  Gregorio  in  similar  case."  This 
is  the  case  of  a  foreign  city,  and  precisely  the  same 
course  is  adopted  with  an  English  city.  Thus  the 
mayor,  aldermen,  and  commonalty  of  the  city  of 
London  write  to  the  mayor,  bailiffs,  and  commonalty 
of  Sandwyz,  that  is  Sandwich  in  Kent,  that  they 
"  had  already  twice  desired  them  by  letter  to  inquire 
into   a   grievous    offence    lately    committed    against 


CITV    AND    STATE  175 

John  Tornegold  the  younger  at  Tlymouth  by  Thomas 
Gyboun,  Thomas  de  Chilham,  maryner,  Kobert 
Gof'aire,  and  other  malefactors,  contrary  to  the  peace 
of  the  lord  the  king  and  to  see  justice  done."  They 
Hrst  of  all  "'examined  the  said  persons  in  full  assembly," 
and  then  asked  that  John  Tornegold  should  repair  to 
Sandwich.  He  went  there  accordingly,  "but  had 
returned  without  remedy  or  recovery  to  his  great 
loss  and  damage.  They  are  therefore  again  especially 
desired  to  take  this  matter  to  heart,  that  friendship 
might  continue  between  them,  and  that  their  citizens 
repairing  to  London  might  not  be  aggrieved  through 
default  of  justice  on  their  part.  The  Lord  have 
them  in  His  keeping."  The  case  was  taken  up  by  a 
later  mayor  (1351-2),  but  we  do  not  hear  the  final 
result.  Adam  Fraunceys,  mayor  in  1352-4,  writes  in 
April  to  the  bailiffs  and  good  folk  of  the  town  of 
Gippeswiz  (Ipswich),  "desiring  them  to  restore  the 
distress  they  had  taken  from  Thomas  Pyeke,  draper 
and  citizen  of  London  "  ;  and  again  on  the  7th  May, 
"  expressing  surprise  that  nothing  had  been  done," 
again  making  their  request,  "  that  there  might  be  no 
occasion  to  write  again  on  the  same  subject,  nor  for 
annoying  their  folk  repairing  to  London  owing  to 
their  default."  ^ 

There  is  no  necessity  to  repeat  examples.  The 
request  is  formal,  addressed  by  the  mayor  and  alder- 
men or  by  the  mayor,  aldermen,  and  commonalty  of 
London  to  the  properly  entitled  corporations  of  the 

^  Calendar  of  Letters,  1350-1370,  pp.  3,  23,  4-9. 


176  LONDON 

other  towns.  The  difference  which  occurs  in  the 
title  of  the  London  authority  is  perhaps  of  some 
importance.  The  mayor  and  aldermen,  in  almost 
all  cases,  address  English  cities,  the  mayor,  aldermen, 
and  commonalty  address  the  foreign  cities,  and  the 
exceptions  in  either  case  are  few  and  unimportant, 
and  perhaps  to  be  accounted  for  by  faults  in  the 
record.^  The  action,  however,  is  entirely  a  municipal 
act — an  intermunicipal  act,  in  point  of  fact.  It  did 
not  become  municipal  by  any  exercise  of  sovereign 
power.  It  does  not  appear  among  municipal  archives 
as  an  innovation  in  municipal  practice.  It  is  already 
in  existence  when  it  is  first  recorded  among  the 
archives.  Everything  tends  to  show  that  it  was  a 
heritage  from  a  distant  past  used  and  extended  by 
London  and  by  cities  influenced  by  London. 

The  records  of  the  Plantagenet  period,  clear  as 
they  are  upon  the  points  we  have  just  examined,  are 
baffling  in  other  aspects  of  the  relationship  between 
London  and  the  sovereignty.  We  have  "  the  Acte 
for  correccio  of  the  Errours  and  wrong  Jugege- 
mentis  in  London,"  which  sets  forth  that  "  by  a 
statute  made  in  the  tyme  of  ye  noble  Kyng  Edward, 
ayal  to  our  Lord  the  King  that  now  ys,  the  yere  of 
his  reigne  the  xxviii.,  it  was  ordeined  and  establyshed 

^  Taking  the  first  hundred  exanii)les  in  the  Letter  Book,  1350- 
1370,  Bristol,  Yarmouth,  Sandwicli,  Horsham,  and  Gloucester  are 
addressed  by  the  mayor,  aldermen,  and  commonalty,  and  there  are 
seven  foreign  cities  so  addressed  ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  mayor  and 
aldermen  alone  address  Sluys,  Bruges,  and  Bayonne,  and  there  are 
thirty-seven  English  cities  so  addressed. 


CITY   AND   STATE 


177 


that  for  this,  that  tlie  errours,  defautis,  and  niys- 
takyng  yt  be  naturally  taken  and  vsed  in  the  cite 
of  London  for  defaut  of  good  gou'nauce  of  the 
Mair,  Sherefs,  and  Aldirmen 
yt  haue  the  gouernainice  of 
the  said  eyte,"  ^  the  king  may 
enact  a  fine,  and  as  a  last 
resort  may  take  the  franchise 
of  the  city  into  his  hands. 
Also  we   have  examples  of 


a    singular    interference    with 


Seal  of  Henry  IV. 


purely  domestic  concerns  of 
the  city.  A  proclamation  tempore  Henry  IV.  enacts 
"that  no  one  wander  about  the  city  after  eight 
o'clock  at  night  unless  he  be  of  good  character  and 
carry  a  light,   that    no  one   wear  mask  or  vizor  at 

Christmas,     and     that     every 

X      house  be  lighted  with  a  candle 

and  lantern  during  the  same 

;  festival,  under  penalty  of  a  fine 

offourpence."   A  little  later  on, 

7      in  1405,  the  order  was  "that  a 

^       lighted  lantern  is  hung  outside 

each  house  that  is  on  the  hioh- 

Seal  of  Henry  IV.  ^^  ,  ^ 

way."^  It  is  surprising  that  a 
royal  proclamation  should  be  the  source  of  this  regu- 
lation of  citizen  conduct,  while  it  took  no  note  of 
and  no  part  in  affairs  of  much  more  importance. 

'   Arnold's  Chronicle,  p.  -i.S. 

'-  Calendar  of  Letter  Books,  i.  (1 100-1422),  pp.  38,  44-,  45,  83. 


178  LONDON 

These  facts  and  others  of  Hke  nature  go  far  to 
explain  that  city  and  state  were  in  relationship 
all  through  the  Norman  and  Plantagenet  period 
only  under  the  conditions  of  survival  and  struggle, 
not  under  the  definite  conditions  of  a  settled 
polity.  There  were  ebbings  and  flowings  in  the 
tides  of  that  relationship,  and  any  one  of  the 
great  events  of  the  period  might  have  turned  the 
stream  permanently  and  resistlessly  into  directions 
different  from  those  in  which  it  ultimately  found 
its  way.  The  point  is  important,  not  only  in 
the  history  of  the  city,  but  in  the  history  of  the 
state.  The  issues  were  not  always  nmnicipal  issues. 
They  were  national  issues.  And  the  very  bigness 
of  these  issues  creates  a  view  of  London  history 
which  requires  special  facts  to  explain  its  origin, 
special  facts  to  explain  its  continuation,  special 
facts  to  explain  its  power  and  its  forcefulness. 
It  is  the  combination  of  these  sets  of  facts  in 
relationship  to  each  other  which  is  capable  of 
supplying  the  only  view  of  London  which  answers 
to  the  historical  situation.  We  have  ascertained 
how  strong  was  the  power  which  twisted  the  line 
of  continuity,  and  how  strong  was  the  defence  which 
kept  the  line  intact.  That  there  was  a  twist  and 
there  was  defence,  however,  are  the  essential  facts 
of  the  case. 

The  institution  of  the  city,  then,  was  the  work  of 
generations,  and  it  was  a  work  of  struggle,  not  of 
peaceful    development.     This    is    seen    everywhere. 


CITY   AND    STATE  179 

There  is  not  a  single  phase  of  medianal  London 
where  struggle  is  not  the  main  feature.  And  this 
is  wholly  in  favour  of  the  continuity  of  an  almost 
independent  London  through  the  Anglo-Saxon 
period.  The  forces  of  medijeval  times  were  stronger 
than  those  of  Anglo-Saxon  times.  The  methods 
and  the  objects  of  the  sovereign  power  were  more 
dangerous.  It  was  settled  policy  to  bring  London 
within  the  state,  and  London  had  to  give  in  at 
several  points.  Not  everywhere,  however,  and  not 
always,  was  I^ondon  compelled  to  surrender  her 
power  and  her  rights.  The  fact  that  she  could  make 
so  good  a  fight,  and  come  out  at  the  end  so  power- 
ful, and  with  so  much  within  her  that,  inherited  as 
governance  and  law,  was  continued  as  custom,  is 
evidence  sufficient  that  the  heritage  of  London 
comes  from  a  more  powerfully  organised  state 
government  than  England  at  any  time  possessed, 
was  the  product  of  a  governing  system  which  was 
foreign  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  mind. 

During  all  this  long  period  London  has  been 
unbroken  in  its  continuity.  The  line  is  not  quite  so 
straight,  its  twisted  form  betokens  the  struggle  it 
has  had,  but  the  line  is  not  broken.  I  have  argued 
that  the  Normans  did  not  break  it  by  conquest  any 
more  than  did  the  Danes,  any  more  than  did  the 
Anglo-Saxons.  Entry  by  consent  does  not  include 
breakage  in  city  life  and  thought.  I  am  now  in  a 
position  to  confirm  the  argument  by  evidence  pro- 
duced   from    the    Plantagenet    history   of    London. 


180  LONDON 

There  is  entire  evidence  of  continuity  in  spite  of 
king's  charters  and  king's  rule,  in  spite  of  encroach- 
ment by  church  and  lords.  I^ondon  was  too  real  to 
break  under  such  forces,  and  we  end  at  this  stage 
with  a  strong  note  of  continuity. 


CHAPTER   \  III 


THE    DISRUPTION    OF    COMMERCIALISM 

How  magnificently  the  institution  of  London,  welded 
jis  we  have  seen  it  welded  out  of  ancient  and  later 


The  Tower  of  London,  tevip,  Ilenrv  \  11. 
Royal  M3S.  l6,  f.  ii. 

materials,  with  the  dominant  note  of  continuity, 
answered  to  the  requirement  of  the  nation  is  strikingly 
shown  throughout  its  early  history.  That  history 
has  now   to   be  considered    in   relationship  to  what 

followed,  and  this  I  think  has  never  been  understood. 

isi 


182  LONDON 

It  shows  a  considerable  deflection  from  the  past,  but 
it  remains  a  continuation  from  the  past.  The  break- 
away from  the  main  principle  of  communal  Hfe  was 
complete  ;  the  entry  into  the  new  commercial  life  was 
just  as  complete.  The  new  commercial  city  kept 
alive  its  ancient  communal  insignia,  used  its  communal 
functions  on  supreme  occasions  when  they  were  re- 
quired, but  its  older  collective  citizenship  had  to  give 
way  to  the  new  individualism.  It  took  orders  from 
Tudor  sovereign  and  Tudor  ministers,  looked  to  state 
courts  and  state  law  for  settlement  of  problems  once 
in  the  province  of  its  own  municipal  law  to  settle^ — 
performed  all  these  inconsistencies  without  in  form 
actually  destroying  the  essential  features  of  its  ancient 
system. 

In  substance  there  was  destruction.  A  ghastly 
sort  of  chasm  seems  to  arise  between  Tudor  London 
and  Plantagenet  London — a  chasm  which  has  never 
been  bridged,  and  across  which  it  is  not  quite  easy  to 
carry  the  threads  of  continuity.  Continuity  existed 
still.  This  must  be  insisted  upon.  But  it  was  not 
the  same  continuity.  It  was  a  continuity  by  way  of 
custom,  not  by  way  of  policy.  The  city  followed  its 
old  forms,  but  only  as  customs,  frequently  with  no 
institutional  meaning  in  them,  and  with  considerably 
shortened  powers.  The  change  came  from  the 
sovereignty.  The  old  relationship  to  the  crown  was 
between  "the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  "  and  "  his  lord- 

^    I  quote  a  very  good  exani])le  in  connection  with  the  Tower  of 
London  in  relation  to  the  city  in  my  Making  of  London,  p.  198. 


DISRUPTION   OF  COMMERCIAUSINI     183 

ship  the  King."  The  new  rehitionship  was  between 
"  my  lord  Mayor  "  and  "  His  Majesty,"  or  the  ministers 
of  His  Majesty.  Lordship  and  majesty  are  great  titles. 
They  are  great  and  silent  powers  working  towards  a 
dividing  line,  and  which  have  the  fatal  characteristic 
of  feeding  upon  their  own  growth.  They  indicate  a 
settled  change,  not  only  in  the  relationship  of  city 
and  state,  but  in  the  conception  of  the  state  itself. 
We  have  had  to  note  one  great  change  from  a  state 
system  to  that  of  lordship.  We  have  now  to  note 
an  even  greater  change  from  the  communal  system 
to  the  commercial  system. 

The  change  in  the  national  sovereignty  and  the 
state  was  fundamental.  Dr  Hill  describes  it  in  an 
extremely  useful  way.  He  points  out  that  "  for 
centuries  Christendom  was  conceived  of  as  one  great 
state  in  which  the  nature  and  relations  of  the  feudal, 
and  afterward  the  national,  monarchies  were  obscured 
by  their  acknowledged  dependence  upon  a  common 
superior,  the  Holy  Roman  See ;  within  the  circle  of 
Christendom,  authority  both  civil  and  spiritual  was 
conceived  of  as  descending  from  a  divine  source 
through  the  rulers  whom  God  had  established.  Of 
the  territorial  state  possessing  sovereignty  in  itself 
there  could  therefore  be  no  conception."  And  then, 
after  an  examination  of  the  new  juristical  doctrines 
of  Bodin  in  France  and  Althuesius  in  Germany,  he 
concludes  :  "  It  is  the  state,  however,  and  not  merely 
the  royal  personage  who  constitutes  its  head,  that  now 
and  henceforth  will  claim  attention.     In  the  feudal 


184  LONDON 

age  there  was  no  conception  of  a  state.  Society  was 
then  composed  of  a  hierarchy  of  persons  bound 
together  in  relations  of  vassalage  and  suzerainty.  In 
the  development  of  the  national  monarchies  the  kings 
gradually  concentrated  in  their  own  hands  all  public 
authority  by  absorbing  in  their  own  persons  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  feudal  lords."  ^ 

Hitherto  the  events  of  London  have  all  belonged 
to  London.  However  trivial  and  however  great,  they 
were  London  in  origin,  London  in  meaning,  London 
in  effect.  They  belonged  to  that  great  mass  of 
historic  event  which  proceeded  in  its  magnificent 
and  solid  way  from  age  to  age,  carrying  on  the  con- 
tinuous story,  as  1  have  indicated  in  former  chapters. 
Now  there  is  to  tell  a  different  state  of  things.  Not 
every  event  in  London  is  a  London  event.  Not 
every  event  marches  along  with  the  stately  pageant 
of  London  history.  An  outside  power  is  there,  a 
power  as  great  as  it  is  remarkable.  It  appears  at  the 
hands  of  the  successive  Tudor  sovereigns,  all  of  them 
remarkable  men  and  women.  It  appears  at  the  hands 
of  ministers  of  the  crown,  all  of  them  remarkable  men. 
It  appears  at  the  hands  of  the  men  of  Devon,  the 
men  of  Dorset,  men  from  the  east  and  men  from  the 
west,  men  who  come  not  to  toil  and  work  in  I^ondon 
on  London  lines,  not  to  work  in  connection  with 
London  at  all,  but  to  work  for  the  new  conception  of 
industry  and  trade  in  which  London  would  have 
only  an  incidental  part.     It  had  become  a  national 

^    D.  J.  Hill,  Ilixtorij  of  Dijdomacy,  vol.  ii.  pj).  491^  517. 


SIR   THOMAS    MORE. 
From  the  drawing  by  Hant  Holbein,  at  Windsor  Castle. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     18.5 

trade,  and  London  would  only  have  so  mneli  of  it 
as  would  flow  to  it  along  the  track  of  the  ocean 
ships.     (See  Appendix  V.) 

Up  to  this  point  we  have  been  dealing  with  I^ondon 
events  by  the  light  of  the  ever-recurring  formula, 
"  according  to  ancient  custom."  From  this  point  we 
are  to  have  continuity  of  I^ondon  events  as  an  in- 
teresting or  previously  unnoted  circumstance — an 
occasional  continuity  based  upon  the  whims  of  the 
moment,  not  upon  the  polity  of  London.  The  change 
is  fundamental.  Perhaps  it  was  being  prepared  for 
during  the  last  chaotic  days  of  Plantagenet  kingship, 
but  it  seems  to  come  suddenly  and  with  strange 
silence.  We  come  upon  it  with  no  surprise,  no 
regret,  no  welcome.     It  is  there  and  it  is  accepted. 

Although  this  seems  to  be  the  reading  of  the  times, 
we  are  sure  there  is  something  behind  it  all — some- 
thing as  voiced  in  the  philosophic  regrets  of  Sir 
Thomas  More  to  changes  which,  in  many  ways,  he 
understood  ;  in  the  political  dislikes  of  Cardinal  Pole 
to  changes  which  he  did  not  understand  at  all ;  in  the 
religious  objections  of  Erasmus  to  changes  of  which  he 
but  dimly  saw  the  outcome.  Erasmus  did  not  under- 
stand the  execution  of  More,  neither  the  principle  for 
which  More  fought  and  died,  nor  the  necessity  of  the 
king  in  determining  the  execution.  The  something 
behind  all  this  is  the  disappearance  once  for  all  of 
the  ancient  English  system  of  social  and  political 
organisation,  and  the  incoming  of  a  new  system, 
English    in    that    it   was   adopted    by    the    English 


186  LONDON 

people,  continental  in  that  it  came  in  with  the 
sweeping  force  of  European  influence. 

There  is  not  much  room  for  the  exercise  of  civic 
powers  in  this  new  order  of  things.  The  city  had 
taken  its  share  in  producing  this  new  line  of  political 
development.  It  had  now  to  give  way  to  the  state 
it  had  helped  to  create.  The  state  is  to  be  every- 
where and  to  do  everything.  And  its  claim  is  sub- 
scribed to.  That  in  England  London  does  not  quite 
bow  the  head,  that  against  the  claim  of  the  state  for 
universal  governance  there  still  remains  the  claim  of 
London  to  work  out  its  own  destiny  on  its  old  lines, 
are  merely  the  signs  of  a  final  stage.  London  was  not 
successful.  It  could  not  be,  for  the  new  powers  of 
the  state  were  derived  from  the  forces  which  dis- 
rupted Europe. 

Our  evidence  in  the  future  will  fall  under  four 
principal  heads,  two  of  them  belonging  to  the  older 
history,  the  other  two  entirely  new.  These  are  :  (1) 
the  sovereignty  in  relation  to  the  city ;  (2)  changed 
views  of  the  city  ;  (3)  commercialism  of  the  city  ;  (4) 
city  expansion. 

The  new  position  of  affairs  in  relation  to  the  sove- 
reignty may  be  introduced  by  a  delightful  story  first 
told  by  Stow  of  Queen  Mary,  and  then  afterwards  by 
Howel  of  King  James  the  First.  Stow's  story  is  of  an 
alderman  of  London  who,  "  whenas  on  a  time  it  was 
told  him  by  a  courtier  that  Queene  Mary  in  her  dis- 
pleasure against  London  had  appointed  to  remoue  with 
the  Parliament  and  Terme  to  Oxford,  this  playne  man 


DISRUPTI(3N  OF  COMMERCIALISM     187 

demanded  whether  she  meant  also  to  diuert  the  Riuer 
of  Thames  from  London  or  no  ?  and  when  the  Gentle- 
man had  answered  no,  then  quoth  the  Alderman,  by 
God's  grace  wee  shall  do  well  enough  at  London  what- 
soeuer  become  of  the  Tearme  and  Parliament."  ^  The 
Howel  version  is  told  in  his  Londhiopolis  (p.  19), 
published  in  1G57,  and  it  appears  to  be  another 
version  of  the  same  story :  "  The  Thames  may  be 
said  to  be  London's  best  friend,  which  puts  me  in 
minde  of  a  passage  of  drollery  that  happened  in  the 
time  of  King  James,  who,  being  displeased  with  the 
City  because  she  would  not  lend  him  such  a  sum  of 
money,  and  tlie  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen 
attending  him  one  day,  being  somewhat  transported, 
he  said  that  he  would  remove  his  own  Court,  with 
all  the  records  of  the  Tower  and  the  Courts  of 
Westminster  Hall,  to  another  place.  .  .  .  The  Lord 
Mayor  calmly  heard  all,  and  at  last  answered.  Your 
Majesty  hath  power  to  do  what  you  please,  and  your 
City  of  London  will  obey  accordingly ;  but  she 
humbly  desires  that  when  your  Majesty  shall  remove 
your  Courts,  you  would  please  to  leave  the  Thames 
behind  you." 

There  is  something  more  serious  than  this  in  the 
sovereign's  attitude  towards  the  city  and  its  institu- 
tions. Over  and  over  again  has  the  city  to  allege  its 
ancient  custom  against  the  claims  of  the  crown  to 
interfere.  In  1580  the  Lords  of  the  Council  desired 
to  know  why  the  ancient  and  honourable  Feast  of  the 

1  Ston\  by  Kingsford,  vol.  ii.  p.  200. 


188 


LONDON 


Lord  Mayor  had  been  omitted,  "without  permission 
or  allowance  of  the  Privy  Council,"  and  the  answer  of 
the  lord  mayor,  explaining  that  the  omission  was  due 


The  Guildhall  about  1560,  from  Ralph  Agas'  plan. 

to  the  feeble  state  of  his  health,  added,  that  "  it  had 
not  been  usual  to  obtain  permission  of  Her  Majesty 
or  the  Council  to  omit  the  feast."  ^  If  only  the  city 
had  given  some  account  of  this  ancient  feast,  and 
its  significance  among  the  ceremonials  of  the  city, 

^  lieviemhrancia,  p.  206. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     189 

the  petty  interference  of  the  sovereign  in  such 
matters  would  have  become  a  secondary  concern. 
There  was  interference  almost  everywhere.  *'  Upon 
the  day  of  the  Lord  Mayor  taking  his  oath  without 
the  Tower  gate  an  attempt  had  been  made  by  the 
warders  to  take  down  the  sword  borne  before  the 
Lord  Mayor"  ;^  aldermen  elected  "according  to 
ancient  custom  "  were  sought  to  be  excused  from 
serving  by  request  of  His  Majesty;  the  proceedings 
at  the  election  of  lord  mayor  were  inquired  into,  and 
the  Court  of  Aldermen  had  to  defend  the  action  they 
had  taken ;  offices,  some  of  them  petty  offices,  were 
sought  for  on  behalf  of  nominees  of  the  crown ;  the 
Tower  boundaries  were  disputed ;  even  the  city's 
administration  of  the  affiiirs  of  orphans,  "  according 
to  the  laws  and  usages  of  the  city,"  was  encroached 
upon ;  ^  and  the  whole  story  is  in  direct  contrast  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  past. 

We  may  see  some  of  these  operations  in  actual 
working.  On  the  election  of  Alderman  Billingsley 
to  the  office  of  mayor  there  is  curious  and  interesting 
evidence.  On  the  1st  September  1596  the  aldermen 
write  to  Mr  Alderman  Skinner,  then  lord  mayor, 
informing  him  of  Her  Majesty's  desire  that  Mr 
Alderman  Billingsley  should  not  be  elected  to  the 
office  of  lord  mayor  for  the  following  year,  and 
requesting  him  to  repair  to  London  not  later  than 
the  7th  or  9th  of  September  to  confer  with  them 
touching   his   election  to  that   office.     I^ord    Mayor 

^   Rcmembrancia,  p.  -iSi.  -  Ibid.,  p.  307. 


190  LONDON 

Skinner,  however,  died  on  31st  December  1596,  during 
his  year  of  office,  and  Alderman  BiUingsley  was  elected 
in  his  place.  Sir  John  Croke  was  then  recorder,  and 
he  has  left  a  MS.  note-book  giving  the  substance  of 
twenty-nine  speeches  delivered  by  him  to  Queen 
Elizabeth  and  King  James.  One  of  these,  delivered 
in  January  1597,  was  "  sur  le  presenting  de  Alderman 
BiUingsley  a  le  Tower  in  vacationem  inter  Christmas 
and  le  terme,"  in  which  he  says :  "In  place  of  the 
governor  lately  taken  from  us  we  have  proceeded  to 
the  election  of  another,  before  this  time  elegible  to 
the  place,  and  only  forborne  for  that  he  was  sequestered 
to  some  other  service  of  Her  Majesty,  and  yet  now. 
Her  Majesty  vouchsafing  to  spare  him  from  herself 
to  serve  the  city,  and  having  chosen  him  according 
to  the  charters  of  Her  Majesty  and  her  most  noble 
progenitors  granted  to  us,  ...  we  present  him  here 
to  be  admitted."  On  6th  February  1596-7  there  was 
another  speech  "  sur  presenting  Alderman  BiUingsley 
a  sa  Majesty."^  Alderman  BiUingsley  did  not  have 
an  easy  time  of  it.  It  was  the  year  of  the  disastrous 
surrender  of  Calais  to  Spain,  and  the  city  was  called 
upon  to  supply  a  contingent  of  two  hundred  men  to 
recruit  the  garrison  of  the  cautionary  town  of  Flushing, 
and  towards  the  end  of  the  year  the  city  was  again 
called  upon  to  fit  ten  ships  for  the  public  service. 
This  matter  was  referred  to  a  committee,  and  the  city 
practically  refused  to  obey  the  commands,  pointing 
out  "the  great  discontentment  and  utter  discourage- 

^   Hist.  M8S.  Cuvi.,  Clieijuers  Court,  Bucks.,  pj).  5-6. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     101 


Sir  Thomas  Gresham,  Lord  Mayor  uf  London  ;   from  the  portrait  by  Moro 
in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery. 


192  LONDON 

ment  of  the  common  people  within  this  citie  touchinge 
their  adventure  in  the  late  viage  to  the  town  at  Cales 
(Cadiz)."  To  this  the  queen  rephed  sharply.  The 
city  had  pleaded  scarcity  of  provisions  and  poverty  as 
an  excuse  for  not  carrying  out  her  recent  orders. 
"  V'^ery  good,  let  the  livery  companies,  whose  duty  it 
was  to  find  men  and  money  w^hen  required,  practise 
a  little  self-restraint  in  the  coming  summer  (1597). 
Let  them,  she  said,  forbear  giving  feasts  in  their  halls 
and  elsewhere,  and  bestow  half  the  money  thus  saved 
on  the  poor  ;  and  the  order  of  the  Court  of  Aldermen 
went  forth  accordingly."  ^  This  reproof  of  the  Tudor 
queen  seems  almost  modern,  but  the  result  of  obedi- 
ence is  entirely  Tudor. 

The  election  of  aldermen  also  supplies  an  extra- 
ordinary proceeding.  The  case  of  Paul  Wythypol  in 
1.527  brought  Henry  VIII.  and  the  citizens  into 
variance.  The  king  desired  Wythypol's  discharge,  at 
least  for  a  time  ;  but  the  Court  of  Aldermen  hesitated 
to  accede  to  the  request,  and  at  the  instance  of 
Cardinal  Wolsey  sought  an  interview  with  the  king. 
"To  Greenwich  they  accordingly  went  (24  Feb.)  by 
water,  where  they  arrived  in  time  to  give  a  formal 
reception  to  the  cardinal,  who  landed  soon  afterwards 
in  his  barge.  After  a  few  words  had  passed  betw^een 
the  cardinal  and  the  municipal  officers,  the  former 
entered    the   palace  whilst  the   latter  waited   in   the 

^  Sharpe,  London  and  tlic  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  pj).  556-559  5  compare 
7'o7n  of  all  Trades,  by  I'homas  Powell,  l631  (New  Shakspere 
Soc),  p.  165. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     193 

king's  great  chamber  till  dinner-time.  When  that 
hour  arrived  they  were  bidden  to  go  down  to  the  hall, 
where  the  mayor  was  entertained  at  the  lord  steward's 
mess  and  tlie  aldermen  received  like  attention  from 
the  comptroller  and  other  officers  of  state.  Dinner 
over,  the  company  returned  to  the  great  chamber, 
where  they  were  kept  waiting  till  the  evening.  At 
length  the  mayor  and  aldermen  were  bidden  to  the 
king's  presence  in  his  secret  chamber.  What  took 
place  there  the  writer  of  the  record  declares  himself 
unable  to  say."  The  practical  outcome  was  that 
Wythypol  was  left  unmolested  for  a  whole  twelve- 
month.^ Not  even  to  Henry  VIII.,  therefore,  did  the 
city  bend  absolutely,  and  we  cannot  but  contrast  this 
with  the  more  painful  but  strikingly  similar  incident 
which  took  place  when  James  II.  was  king.- 

These  are,  of  course,  merely  reminiscent  notes, 
tliough  they  illustrate  pretty  plainly  the  changed 
aspect  of  the  relationship  between  the  city  and  the 
sovereignty.  Henry  VII.  came  to  the  throne  with 
a  strangely  doubtful  title;  Henry  VIII.,  as  Freeman 
points  out,  is  '•  electe,  chosen,  and  required  by  all 
the  three  estates  of  this  lande  to  take  uppon  hym 
the  seid  coronne  and  royall  dignitie,"  and  is  the 
last  English  monarch  to  hear  the  formula  "  Yea,  yea, 
yea  "  which  confirmed  his  election.^  But  London  is 
quite   out   of  it   in   both    cases.     The   precedent    of 

^  Sharpe,  London  and  the  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  pp.  377-378. 
-  See  my  Making  of  London,  p.  208. 

■^  Fi'eeman,  The  Xorman  Conquest  (second  edition)^  vol.  iii.  p.  627. 

13 


194  LONDON 

Richard  III.  did  not  move  Henry  VII.  to  follow  it. 
The  new  precedent  set  by  Henry  VIII.  deliberately 
ignored  London,  and  was  not  followed  in  any  respect. 
So  complete  is  the  change  that  there  is  not  even 
an  echo  of  it,  and  if  it  were  not  for  the  fact  that  at 
a  later  period  there  occur  events  which  bring  back 
the  old  conditions,  there  might  well  be  considerations 
applicable  to  these  old  conditions  which  might  en- 
danger the  completeness  of  the  view  which  I  am 
taking  of  them. 

Continuity  from  the  ancient  to  the  new  London 
is  not,  however,  entirely  broken.  Wherever  the  city 
dealt  with  matters  which  Tudor  necessities  did  not 
touch,  there  the  old  tradition  was  openly  dominant. 
The  assembly  of  the  citizens  in  arms  at  JNIile  End 
occupies  a  conspicuous  place  in  London  history. 
It  is  the  commencing  point  from  which  to  under- 
stand the  position  of  London  as  a  city  in  arms,  and 
it  still  survives  in  Tudor  times.  Tudor  plays  refer  to 
it,  as  in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  Knight  of  the  Burn- 
ing Pestle,  where  the  following  passage  occurs  : 

"  After  this  action  I  preferred  was. 
And  chosen  city  captain  at  Mile  End, 
With  hat  and  feather  and  with  leading  staff, 
And  trained  my  men  and  brought  them  all  off  clear." 

In  the  correspondence  of  the  period  we  constantly 

meet  with  such  notes  as,  "  The  city  train  bands  went 

out  to  guard,"  and  "  His  Majesty  went  to  JNIile  End 

to  see  "  such  and  such  a  regiment,^  but  to  know  the 

^  Such  notes  occur  in  a  Newsletter  of  ]  1th  October  1688.  Hist. 
MSS.  Com.,  xii.  (vii.)  p.  214. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     195 

full  story  of  the    Mile  End  assemblage  of  arms  we 
must  go  to  a  definite  description  of  such  an  event. 

This  we  may  do   by  referring   to  a  document  of 
Henry  VIII/s  reign.    The  details  of  this  assembly  are 
most  interesting,  and  I  will  quote  from  the  original 
record  such  of  them  as  will  illustrate  the  principle. 
The  muster  took   place  on  the  8th    of  May  in  the 
thirty-first  year  of  King  Henry  VII L,  and  the  occa- 
sion was  the  threatened  invasion  of  the  country  by 
the  Roman  Catholics  under  Reginald  Pole.     Henry 
was  extraordinarily  acti^'e,  and  I^ondon  received  his 
commands.     Tlie  city  obeyed  in  right  royal  style,  and 
there  was  much  planning  and  arranging.     The  "  lorde 
mayor  and  hys   brethern   th'   aldermen    sev'rally  re- 
payred  to   theyre  wards,  and   there,  by  the  othe  of 
the  com'on  counsayll  and  the  constables  of  the  same 
warde,    tooke   the   hoole   nombre   of    all    the    men, 
wepons,  and  harnesses  accordyngly."     They  did  not 
"  admytt  the  hole  nombre  as  p'sones  hable  to  mustre," 
but,  after  settling   various   details    of   accoutrement 
and  costume,  "  on  the  viij*''  day  of  JNIay,  ev'y  alder- 
man, w^  hys  warde  yn  good  order  of  batayll,  before 
vi  of  the   clokke  yn   the   mornyng   came  ynto   the 
comon  felde,  between  Myle  End  and  Whyte  Chapell, 
and  than  all  the  gonns   sortyd  theymselfF  ynto  one 
place,  lykwyse  dyd  the  pykes,  and   the  archars  and 
the   byll    men.      Than    ev'y    company   by   hymselff 
rynged  and  swayled  yn  the  feld,  whiche  was  a  goodly 
thynge  to  be  holde,  fFor  all  the  fieldes  from  Whyte 
Chapell  to  Myle  Ende,  and  from  Bednall  Grene  to 


196  LONDON 

RatclyfF  and  Stepney,  were  all  cov'yd  w*  men  yn 
bryght  harnes  w^  glystering  wepons.  The  batyll 
of  pykes  whan  they  stode  styll  semyd  a  great  wood. 
'J'han  ev'y  company  was  devyded  ynto  iij  p'tes,  the 
pykes  ynto  iii  p'tes,  and  so  the  archers  and  the  byll 
men."  Yes,  it  was  a  great  sight,  but  let  us  note 
carefully  that  every  alderman,  with  his  ward  in  good 
order  of  battle,  marched  to  this  great  muster.  The 
city  swordbearer,  "  in  a  convenyent  dystance  behynde 
the  banners,"  was  followed  by  "  S''  Wyllyam  Forman, 
Knyght  and  Lorde  Mayer  of  the  cytye,"  with  "  iiij 
fote  men "  followed  by  "  ij  Pages,"  and  "  on  ev'y 
syde  of  the  lorde  mayor  a  good  dystaunce  went  viij 
talle  men."  A  good  distance  after  the  lord  mayor 
rode  the  recorder  of  the  city,  then  "the  atto'neys, 
clerks,  and  ofFycers  of  the  lawe  app'teynyieng  to  the 
Guyldhall,"  the  surgeons  of  the  city,  and  the  sheriffs. 
Here  certainly  is  the  city  in  arms.  Custom  pervades 
all  the  details,  as  we  find  it  duly  recorded  in  the 
city  records  of  the  ordinary  muster  of  the  watch,  "  as 
in  tyme  past  hath  bene  accustomed."  It  is  not  a 
city  merely  sending  its  quota  to  the  national  army. 
It  is  the  city  assembled  in  its  battle  formation, 
assembled  as  in  peace  by  its  wards  under  its  alder- 
men, with  its  chief  magistrate,  the  lord  mayor,  at  its 
head.  The  description  leaves  nothing  to  argument 
or  surmise.  It  is  set  out  in  full,  and  makes  con- 
tinuity along   this   line   absolutely  certain.^     Indeed 

1  The   description  is  printed  in    lull   in    Archceologia,  vol.  xxxii. 
pp.  30-37. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COIMINIEIUIALISM     197 

it  does  more  than  this.  Sucli  a  minute  description 
is  not  forthcoming  for  the  earher  period,  and  we  are 
entitled  to  read  into  the  earher  records  the  main 
principles  of  this  Tudor  ceremonial  founded  on  ancient 
custom.  Leaving  out  the  strictly  Tudor  details  we 
can  learn  from  it  that  the  city  in  arms  in  the  Barons 
War  of  the  thirteenth  century,  at  the  Hastings  fight, 
in  defence  against  the  Danes,  at  the  Crayford  fight, 
was,  apart  from  details  belonging  to  each  period, 
organised  as  it  was  under  King  Henry  VIII.,  as  we 
shall  find  it  organised  on  a  mucli  greater  occasion 
later  on,  when  it  marched  once  again  to  defend  the 
liberties  of  the  nation. 

It  is  of  supreme  importance  that  we  possess  such 
evidences  of  continuity,  for  there  is  little  else  to  note 
under  the  Tudors.  Elsewhere  we  find  change,  the 
greatest  change  of  all  being  in  the  realms  of  commerce. 
The  alderman's  allusion  to  the  Thames  was  no  fanciful 
thing.  It  is  the  key  to  the  new  conception.  London 
had  hitherto  conducted  its  foreign  trade  by  the  system 
of  intermunicipal  agreements,  and  by  welcoming  and 
housing  foreign  industrial  and  commercial  experts 
within  her  walls,  often  at  the  bidding  of  the  king, 
sometimes  against  her  own  wishes.  Now  she  was  to 
carry  on  foreign  trade  in  quite  a  different  way  and 
spirit.  She  was  to  obtain  it  in  her  own  ships  at  the 
far  end  of  the  world,  a  new  world  to  London  and 
Europe.  Slie  was  to  worship  at  the  shrine  of  a  new 
hero,  Drake,  the  great  captain  who  stands  out  for  all 
time   among   tlie   greatest  of  Englishmen.     Drake's 


198  LONDON 

world-ship  was  moored  in  the  Thames,  and  the  hearts 
of  Londoners  were  stirred  by  it  to  their  depths.  It 
meant  to  them  a  new  ideal  for  commerce  and  for 
English  rule.  And  it  meant  something  even  greater, 
a  new  ideal  of  national  life.  Shakespeare  was  inspired 
to  give  forth  this  new  ideal,  and  though  his  feet 
probably  never  trod  on  foreign  soil,  his  mind  went 
out  to  what  his  great  countrymen  were  doing,  and  he 
trod  upon  foreign  soil  as  it  was  represented  by  Drake's 
ship.  JMr  Fairman  Ordish  in  his  masterly  account 
of  Shakespeare's  London  has  explained  its  inward 
significance :  "  Strong  and  new  life  upon  a  back- 
ground of  heaped  remains  of  a  recent  past :  this  was 
what  greeted  Shakespeare  on  every  hand."  It  greeted 
him  on  the  Thames.  The  great  antiquary,  William 
Camden,  becomes  eloquent  when  he  speaks  of  the 
Thames  as  "  a  sure  and  most  beautiful  Roade  for 
shipping,"  and  then  goes  on  to  say  that  "  a  man  would 
say  that  seeth  the  shipping  there,  that  it  is,  as  it  were,  a 
very  wood  of  trees  disbranched  to  make  glades  and  let 
in  light,  so  shaded  it  is  with  masts  and  sailes."  ^  This 
may  be  hyperbole,  as  Mr  Ordish  suggests,  but  it  is 
from  a  strain  that  stretches  back  into  the  remote  past 
of  London.  Fitzstephen  in  the  twelfth  century  wrote 
that  "'  to  this  city  from  every  nation  under  heaven 
merchants  bring  their  commodities,"  and  then  quotes 
verses  to  describe  the  kind  of  wares  which  came  up 
the  Thames  at  this  date.  The  Thames  of  Tudor 
London    not    only    repeated    the    spectacle    of    the 

^   Ordish,  Sltake.speares  London,  }).  12. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     199 


200  LONDON 

eleventh  century,  but  added  to  it  new  characteristics 
of  its  own. 

A  few  direct  insights  into  London  hfe  may  most 
profitably  be  noted  from  contemporary  documents 
which  contain  not  formal  descriptions,  but  incidental 
notings  of  places  and  their  occupants.  The  Tudor 
period  is  extraordinarily  rich  in  such  material,  and 
contrasts  strangely,  in  this  respect  as  in  others,  with 
the  period  which  preceded  it.  Thus  in  the  examina- 
tion of  Gabriel  Tomlinson,  aged  twenty-one  or  there- 
abouts, servant  to  Richard  Edwards,  draper,  in  con- 
nection with  the  Essex  Rebellion,  it  is  stated  that 
"  upon  Sunday  the  eighth  of  February,  being  then 
in  a  window  in  his  master's  house  in  Gracious  Street, 
about  12  o'clock  of  the  day,  did  there  see  the  Earl  of 
Essex  with  a  great  company  of  men  about  him,  and 
did  hear  the  Earl  with  a  very  loud  voice  say  that  the 
crown  of  England  was  sold  to  Spain,"  and  his  master, 
Richard  Edwards,  draper,  also  deposed  that  he 
"  could  not  certainly  hear  every  word  that  the  Earl 
of  Essex  did  speak,  but  he  saw  him  and  heard  him 
speak  with  a  '  gast '  countenance  and  like  a  man 
forlorn,  and  said,  with  a  loud  voice,  '  You  should  not 
be  cosined  so  or  conicatched  so ' ;  and  then  spake  of 
Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  he  could  not  certainly  understand 
what,  the  confusion  of  the  noise  was  so  great ;  but 
heard  him  say  that  the  crown  of  England  was  sold  to 
the  Infanta  or  King  of  Spain,  or  words  to  that  effect, 
and  that  they  should  believe  honest  and  religious 
men  and  not  be  'conicatched,'  and  used  much  speech 


DISIUIPTTON  OF  COMMERCIALISM     201 

to  that  effect."^  The  drapers' shops  in  Gracechurch 
Street  appear  more  real  to  us  when  they  are  revealed 
in  this  fashion,  and  Bishop  Latimer's  words  seem 
to  come  home  more  deeply  :  "  Now  what  shall  we 
say  of  these  rich  citizens  of  London  ?  what  shall  I 
say  of  them  ?  Shall  I  call  them  proud  men  of 
London,  malicious  men  of  London,  merciless  men  of 
London  ?  .  .  .  London  was  never  so  ill  as  it  is  now. 
In  times  past  men  were  full  of  pity  and  compassion, 
but  now  there  is  no  pity.  In  times  past  when  any  rich 
man  died  in  London  they  were  wont  to  help  the  poor 
scholars  of  the  universities  with  exhibition  ;  when  any 
man  died  they  would  bequeath  great  sums  of  money 
towards  the  relief  of  the  poor."  ^ 

Bishop  Latimer's  complaint  was  not,  perhaps, 
quite  true  to  the  times — but  they  were  true  to  him, 
smarting  under  the  changes  which  had  come  about, 
and  being  ignorant  of  the  methods  which  were  to 
be  introduced  to  deal  with  the  changes.  They  were 
true  also  in  another  sense.  The  older  forms  of  pity 
and  compassion  were  essential  parts  of  citizen  life. 
Citizens  looked  internally,  considered  what  London 
would  say  to  their  acts  or  to  their  neglects.  Now 
citizens  looked  externally,  and  considered  only  what 
was  due  from  them  as  economic  units  of  the  nation. 
Pity  and  compassion  do  not  flow  quite  so  easily  or 
so  freshly  by  the  new  stream,  and  Latimer  had 
found  this  out.     In  blaming  the  citizens  of  London 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  Salisbtiry  Collection,  xi.  p.  6". 

2  Latimer's  Sermon  ojt/ie  Plough,  1548. 


202  LONDON 

he  blamed  wrongly,  for  he  was  looking  back  upon 
the  old  citizenship  instead  of  forward  to  the  new. 

These  changed  views  are  well  illustrated  by  the 
events  which  accompanied  the  mooring  of  Drake's 
ship,  The  Golden  Hind,  near  the  Mast  Dock  at 
Deptford.  From  a  passage  in  one  of  Ben  Jonson's 
plays  it  is  clear  that  it  became  a  resort  for  citizen 
visitors,  the  cabin  being  converted  into  a  banqueting- 
house.  Paul  Hentzner  visited  it  in  1598,  and  describes 
the  event  as  follows  :  "  Upon  taking  the  air  down  the 
river  the  first  thing  that  struck  us  was  the  ship  of 
that  noble  Pirate,  Sir  Francis  Drake,  in  which  he  is 
said  to  have  circumnavigated  this  globe  of  earth."  ^ 
In  later  Stuart  days  it  was  allowed  to  wear  away,  a 
chair  made  from  its  wood  and  resting  in  the  gallery 
of  the  Bodleian  Library,  being  the  last  relic  of  it.'^ 
These  are  the  bare  records.  But  the  fact  is  greater 
than  the  records.  That  "  noble  pirate,"  Drake,  was 
England's  hero.  His  Journeys  were  the  expressions 
of  England's  hopes.  His  hatred  of  the  Spaniard  was 
the  political  note  of  the  period.  His  glorious  fighting 
against  the  Armada,  expressed  in  that  wonderful 
despatch  to  Walsyngham,  summed  up  the  heroic  in 
the  highest  form  of  national  epic :  "  With  the  grace 
of  God  if  we  live,  I  doubt  it  not  but  ere  it  be  long  so 
to  handle  the  matter  with  the  Duke  of  Sidonia  as  he 

^  A  Journey  into  England  by  Paul  Hentzner  in  the  Year  MDXCVIII. 
(Strawbery  Hill  edition),  p.  46. 

"  Abraham  Cowley's  ode  "sitting  and  drinking  in  the  chair 
made  out  of  the  relics  of  Sir  Francis  Drake's  ship"  was  pi'inted 
in  166.3.     {See  Appendix  VI.) 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     208 


shall  wish  himself  at  Saint  Marie  among  his  orange 
trees."  Cecil  recognised  here  "the  first  signe  of 
victory,"  as  he  wrote  on  25th  July  1588,  and  Cecil 
interpreted  aright.^ 

Deptford  is  not  the  only  London  site  dedicated 
to  such  events  as  these.  There  are  Wapping, 
Greenwich,    Ratcliff,    and    ^Voolwich.      The    great 


t±iA^+r- 


Greenwich  Palace  in  the  sixteenth  century. 

captain,  Martin  Frobisher,  an  arctic  explorer  and  a 
commander  against  the  Spanish  Armada,  sailed 
from  RatclifF.  The  first  English  expedition  to  the 
far  north  seas  was  led  by  Sir  Hugh  Willoughby 
and  Richard  Chancellor,  starting  from  RatclifF  in 
1553.  This  was  followed  by  others.  John  Davis, 
whose  name  is  commemorated  in  Davis  Strait  off 
Greenland,  came  "  into  the  river  of  Thames  as  high 
as    Ratcliff   in    safetie,    God    be   thanked,"   on    6th 

1  Hisl.  MS'S.  Com.,  xii.  (iv.),  p.  253. 


204  LONDON 

October  1586.  William  Adams,  who  lived  in  Rat- 
clifF,  took  the  first  ship,  a  Dutch  one,  to  Japan,  and 
John  Saris,  born  in  Aldgate  in  1579,  was  the  first 
to  sail  an  EngHsh  ship  to  Japan.  Raleigh  organised 
his  expedition  to  Cadiz  from  there  in  1596.  Tudor 
London  indeed  is  endowed  richly  in  this  respect,  and 
there  is  scarcely  a  river  landing-place  which  has  not 
its  beginnings  in  this  great  period.  Woolwich  was 
developed  as  a  dockyard  both  by  Henry  VIII.  and 
Elizabeth.  Henry  purchased  land  for  new  docks  for 
building  and  repairing  vessels  there,  and  he  launched 
therefrom  his  ship  The  Great  Harr-y  in  1512. 
Elizabeth  built  her  ship  The  Elizabeth  there,  and 
launched  it  in  1559. 

We  of  this  age  cannot  quite  understand  the  great- 
ness of  the  change  concealed  beneath  such  facts  as 
these.  They  can  only  be  understood  by  reference  to 
their  outcome.  It  is  not  only  that  from  them  arose 
that  historic  meeting  at  Old  Founders  Hall,  Lothbury, 
in  1598,  when  Sir  John  Lancaster's  explorations  led 
a  few  merchant  adventurers,  with  the  lord  mayor 
at  their  head,  to  found  the  East  India  Company, 
but  that  London  was  being  transformed  by  their 
influence. 

The  greatest  and  most  enduring  sign,  not  only  of 
the  changes,  but  of  the  brain-wrought  intention  to 
bring  about  such  changes,  was  the  development  of 
the  English  drama.  That  remarkable  feature  of 
Tudor  London  was  due  to  the  new  position  London 
was  assuming  in  a  new  world.     Nothing  less  could 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM  205 


have  expressed  itself  so  forcibly  upon  the  art  sense, 
and  that  it  took  the  direction  of  drama  was  due  to 
the  feehng  of  movement  in  things,  a  movement  as 
strong  and  as  sudden  as  any  of  the  stirring  events 
which  produced  the  Greek  drama.  The  Enghsh 
drama,  hke  the  Greek,  was  the  product  of  city  civihsa- 
tion.  London  was  the 
city  which  thus  distin- 
guishes itself,  and  to 
Tudor  London  the  dis- 
tinction is  due. 

It  is  well  to  pause 
awhile  here,  for  the 
story  of  the  stage  and 
its  literature  in  its 
earliest  efforts  is  full  of 
interest  to  Londoners. 
Mrs  S  topes  is  our  best 
authority  for  some  of 
this,  and  I  quote  from 
her  the  salient  facts. 
In  1571  the  privy  council  decreed  that  all  strolling- 
players,  who  were  not  "the  servants  of  a  noble- 
man," should  be  dealt  with  as  vagabonds.  James 
Burbage,  a  man  of  the  people,  not  rich,  nor 
university  bred,  but  a  joiner  by  trade,  enrolled 
himself  among  "the  servants"  of  the  favourite.  Sir 
Robert  Dudley.  He  and  his  fellow-actors  were  not 
even  then  safe,  for  the  lord  mayor,  on  the  grounds 
of  disturbances  from  public  performances,  interfered 


The  Swan  Theatre,  1616,  from 
N.  J.  \'isscher"s  \'iew. 


206 


LONDON 


much  with  the  freedom  of  even  "  the  servants  of 
noblemen."  Then  James  Burbage  asked  the  Earl 
of  Leicester  to  secure  a  royal  patent  for  his  com- 
pany.    This  he   did  on  7th  May  1574,  and  thereby 


The  Bear  Garden,  1616,  from  N.  J.  Visscher's  View  of  London. 

turned  the  mumming  of  the  vagabond  into  the 
profession  of  an  artist.  The  patent  was  addressed 
to  all  mayors  and  all  corporations  to  permit  James 
Burbage  and  his  fellows  "  to  use,  exercise,  and  occupy 
the  art  and  faculty  of  playing  comedies,  tragedies, 
interludes,  and  stage  plays  .  .  .  without  any  of  your 
lets  and  hindrances  ...  as  you  tender  our  pleasure." 
But  London    did   not  tender    the    Royal    pleasure. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM      207 

The  lord  mayor  and  the  corporation  refused  to  allow 
any  players  to  play  without  a  licence  from  them,  and 
without  giving  half  their  profits  to  tlie  poor.  The 
following  year  it  disallowed  players  altogether  in 
the  city,  and  forbade  them  to  play  in  innyards,  or 
open  places,  in  the  liberties.  James  Burbage,  while 
necessarily  submitting,  circumvented  their  orders  by 
building  in  1576  in  the  liberty  of  Holywell,  north  of 
Finsbury  Fields,  an  enclosed  building  for  himself  out- 
side of  the  city  jurisdiction,  and  he  became  "the  first 
builder  of  playhouses  " — a  pioneer  even  in  the  name, 
for  he  called  it  "The  Theatre."  James  Burbage  had 
secured  premises  in  another  "  liberty  " — rooms  belong- 
ing to  Sir  William  More  in  the  disused  monastic 
buildings  of  Blackfriars,  which  he  arranged  and  fitted 
as  a  theatre,  so  that  if  the  worst  came  to  the  worst 
at  his  theatre  at  Holywell,  he  would  have  another 
place  whereon  to  stand.  His  sons,  Cuthbert  and 
Richard,  pulled  down  the  theatre,  taking  advantage 
of  the  order  of  the  corporation  for  its  destruction,  so 
as  to  secure  the  material,  and  carried  it  to  Bank  Side 
by  St  Saviour's.  There  they  rebuilt  it,  a  phoenix 
theatre,  the  finest  in  the  land ;  and  they  called  it 
"The  Globe."  In  it  Richard,  the  great  expressor, 
translated  the  ideals  of  Shakespeare,  the  great  creator, 
till  they  had  moved  the  city  and  the  court  to 
wonder,  and  made  the  introduction  of  the  theatre 
one  of  the  glories  to  be  credited  to  Tudor  London. 

Plantagenet    London  would  not  have  acted  thus. 
She  would  have  recognised   Shakespeare  as  she  had 


208 


LONDON 


recognised  Chaucer,  and  the  birthplace  of  the  EngHsh 
drama  would  have  been  in  the  heart  of  the  city  in- 
stead of  being  banished  to  its  unestablished  purlieus. 
The  whole  business  is  on  a  petty  scale.     The  Lord 


The  Globe  Tlieatre  1616,  from  N.  J.  Visscher's  View  of  London. 

Mayor  writes  to  the  Lord  Chancellor  on  12th  April 
1550,  informing  "him  that  the  players  of  plays  used 
at  the  Theatre  and  other  such  places,  and  tumblers 
and  such  like,  were  a  very  superfluous  sort  of  men." 
Against  such  an  opinion  as  this  even  the  court  was 
powerless.  The  Lords  of  the  Council  urged  "  that 
without  frequent  exercise  of  such  plays  as  were  to  be 
presented    before   Her    Majesty,   her   servants   could 


V 

z   > 

Q    J 
z    S^ 

^> 

H     c 

cj  T 

H     S 
Z 

E 
o 

w 


A      jr'f^.'-^ 


iiMy.M^^'^a,;.,.  : 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     209 

not  conveniently  satisfy  her  recreation,"  and  the  city 
wrote  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  informing 
him  how  *'  the  youths  of  the  city  were  greatly  cor- 
rupted, and  tlieir  manners  infected  with  many  evils 
and  ungodly  qualities  by  reason  of  the  wanton  and 
profane  devices  represented  on  the  stage."  Later  on, 
in  1597,  they  urged  the  Lords  of  the  Council  to  sup- 
press the  Theatre,  the  Curtain,  and  the  Bankside/ 

One  tiling  will  be  noted  from  these  facts,  namely, 
that  London  was  getting  outside  its  walls.  It  is  only 
one  of  the  signs  of  an  entirely  new  development  which 
began  in  Tudor  times — namely,  the  expansion  of  the 
city  beyond  the  ancient  lines.  We  are  face  to  face 
with  a  new  London.  The  new  London  is  not  only 
new  institutionally,  but  it  begins  to  be  new  in  form. 
New  problems  arising  from  the  expansion  arise  at 
once,  and  neither  the  city  nor  the  state  attempted  to 
grapple  with  them.  They  were  left  to  solve  them- 
selves, and  have  not  yet  been  solved,  but  they  over- 
whelmed London. 

We  come  upon  the  problem  of  expansion  quite 
suddenly  and  quite  incidentally.  It  gathers  quickly, 
but  it  is  not  dealt  with  and  is  only  recognised  in  a 
petty  way.  Vet  it  is  from  this  stage  onward  going 
to  be  the  dominant  note  in  London  history.  It  is 
going  to  sway  statesmen  and  municipalists.  It  is 
going  to  determine  the  possibilities  of  London  in 
relation  to  the  state.     There  is  a  moment  when   it 

^  See  the  section  devoted  to  "Plays  and  Players"  in  Remem- 
brancia,  pp.  350-357. 

14 


210  LONDON 

could  have  been  grappled  with,  and  when  that 
moment  was  allowed  to  pass  without  action,  perhaps 
purposely  allowed  to  pass,  the  destiny  of  London  for 
three  hundred  years  was  fixed  on  a  low  plane,  on  a 
plane  that  it  has  never  before  occupied.  It  will 
compel  us  to  write  of  decadence,  to  come  across 
events  which  tell  of  the  shame  of  the  city,  to  see 
once  more  the  old  light  of  city  independence  flaming 
from  the  deadness  of  neglect  and  then  flickering  and 
dying  out,  to  close  our  view  with  a  strong  yearning 
for  the  greatness  of  the  past,  but  with  doubts  as  to 
the  possibility  of  achievement.  The  story  of  the 
expansion  of  London  is  heavy  with  disappointments 
and  disillusions,  alleviated  only  by  that  incurable 
optimism  which  comes  from  the  glory  of  the  past. 

We  must  note  some  facts  of  this  expansion.  There 
is  no  such  difficulty  as  we  noted  in  connection  w^ith 
the  topography  of  London  in  pre-Tudor  days.  There 
are  remains  of  Tudor  buildings,  Tudor  maps,  and 
Tudor  literature,  all  of  them  glorious  expressions  of 
the  age.  The  ancient  walls  were  necessary  to  Tudor 
London.  In  a  poem  written  circa  1576,  entitled  A 
ivarning  to  London  by  the  fall  of  Antwerp,^  by  Rafe 
Norris,  we  see  by  one  of  the  allusions  that  the  walls 
of  London  were  looked  upon  as  important  elements 
in  the  city's  safety — 

"  Keep  sure  thy  trench,  prepare  thy  shot." 
And  again — 

"  Erect  your  walles,  give  out  your  charge.*" 

^   This  is  printed  by  tlie  Percy  Society,  vol.  i. 


'S 


I 

c 

0 

a 

H 

a. 


•■3 


J3 

I 
3 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     211 

Expansion  bec^an  with  palaces  -  palaces  of  the 
sovereign,  of  the  new  nobihty,  of  the  princes  of 
the  Church,  all  deeming  it  necessary  to  congregate  in 
London  at  the  commencement  of  its  new  chapter 
of  history  as  capital  city.  Henry  \'  I II.  seized  White- 
hall from  VVolsey,  and  occupied  Eltham,  as  it  had 
been  occupied  since  the  days  of  Henry  IV.  Both 
these  buildings  still  retain  fragments  of  their  former 
glory  in  the  present  day.  Underground  W^hitehall  is 
still  Wolsey  s  Whitehall.  The  hall  at  Eltham  is  still 
an  architectural  glory  of  the  fourteenth  century 
(Appendix  VII.).  The  palaces  of  the  nobility  ex- 
tended along  the  Strand  front  from  the  city  walls  to 
AVestminster,tlie  last  of  them,  Northumberland  House 
at  Charing  Cross,  having  been  destroyed  in  1 874,^  while 
those  of  the  Church  were  principally  situated  in  South- 
wark.  Remains  of  Winchester  House  still  exist  in  the 
municipal  fire  brigade  residence ;  remains  of  Brandon 
House  were  dug  up  only  a  few  years  ago,  and  are 
preserved  as  memorials  of  Tudor  architecture  in  the 
London  museum,  while  the  house  itself  is  pictured 
on  \"an  Wyngaerde's  beautiful  drawing.  The  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  located  himself  at  Lambeth, 
and  his  lordship  of  London  had  been  at  Fulham  since 
Alfred's  time.  We  get  into  closer  touch  with  this 
expansion  by  a  passage  in  Stow's  Annals,  quoted  by 
Furnival  from  Howes's  edition  of  1631  (p.  1048). 
"  There   hath  beene  much   encrease   of  Buildings  in 

^   A  list  of  these^  with  some  descriptive  notes,  is  given  in  Journ. 
Bntish  Archceological  Association,  1906,  pp.  217-230. 


212  LONDON 

all  parts  aforesaid,  chiefly  whereof  I  now  speake,  is 
from  the  West  part  of  Holbourne  and  Bloomesbury, 
and  the  parts  on  that  side,  and  on  the  other  side  of 
the  way  in  a  place  anciently  called  the  Elmes,  of 
Elmes  that  grew  there,  where  Mortimer  was  ex- 
ecuted, and  let  hang  two  dayes  and  two  nights  to 
be  scene  of  the  people,  as  you  may  reade ;  which 
place  hath  now  left  his  name,  and  is  not  knowne  to 
one  man  of  a  Million  where  that  place  was  ;  and  from 
thence  the  New  faire  buildings  called  Queenes  street 
leading  vnto  Drury  lane ;  and  then  on  the  other  side 
the  high  way  in  the  great  Field,  anciently  called 
Long  Acar,  with  the  South  side  of  the  street  called 
Couent  Garden  that  leadeth  vnto  Saint  Martins  Lane, 
which  is  newly  made  a  faire  streete." 

The  note  of  expansion  thus  expressed  in  the 
literature  of  the  day  also  gave  birth  to  the  pro- 
duction of  picture  maps  of  London.  Wyngaerde,  in 
the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  produced  the 
earliest  view  of  London  which  has  been  preserved  to 
modern  times.  It  is  a  great  representation  of  the 
city,  and  cameos  from  it  could  be  taken  at  several 
points.  London  Bridge  is  beautifully  pictured,  and 
the  view  of  the  king's  palace  of  Whitehall  is  extra- 
ordinarily interesting.  Another  map  of  the  period  is 
printed  in  the  Civitatcs  Oi^bis  T'eiTai'um, 1572,hy  Braun 
and  Hogenburg,  all  the  features  of  which  are  distinctly 
Elizabethan,  especially  the  buildings  westward  of 
Temple  Bar.  The  famous  map  of  Ralph  Agas  has 
been    dated  from  internal    evidence  by  Mr  Fairman 


;._'•-[;■ 


V 

3    > 


- 1 

a:  5? 

CO     .- 


^^■%r^^ 


\\".j':;s^v' 


5; 


DISKUPTIOX  OF  COMMERCIALISM     213 

Ordish  at  1561.  Charing  Cross.  Whitehall  (called 
"the  Courte"),  Westminster,  St  James  Park  are  well 
depicted ;  the  territory  of  IJncoln's  Inn  is  enclosed  ; 
the  residence  of  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  Shake- 
speare's patron,  upon  "  the  backe  wall "  of  which, 
"  in  Chauncerie  I^ane,"  whiteblowe  or  whitelowe  grass, 
the  English  "  naile  woort,"  was  noted  by  Gerard 
the  Herbalist  to  grow  plentifully,  is  shown  ;  the  road 
to  Theobalds,  passing  Clerkenwell  and  the  hospital  of 
St  John  of  Jerusalem,  is  plainly  marked  ;  the  Strand, 
Temple  Bar,  and  Fleet  Street,  the  river,  with  its 
many  features  of  interest,  and  the  St  Paul's  area  are 
notable  points  in  this  remarkable  map.  The  Norden 
map  of  1593  is  well  known  and  shows  some  of  the 
most  notable  parts  of  the  city  and  Westminster.^ 

London  is  shown  by  these  facts  to  have  assumed 
outwardly  the  position  of  a  great  European  city,  and 
that  is  undoubtedly  the  true  way  of  estimating  Tudor 
London.  Neither  in  literature  nor  in  art  have  we  any 
representations  or  any  suggestions  of  a  similar  position 
accorded  to  Plantagenet  London.  The  distinction  is 
a  true  distinction.  Plantagenet  London  was  a  great 
London  in  England ;  Tudor  London  was  a  great 
London  in  Europe.  This  conception  is  still  further 
conveyed  by  the  direction  given  by  Isabella  d'Este  to 
the  Mantuan  ambassador  at  Venice,  in  1523,  to  secure 
representations  of  the  chief  cities  of  Europe  in  order 

^  Mr  Wheately  has  desci'ibed  this  map  in  Furnival's  edition  of 
HaiTison's  Description  of  England,  vol.  i.  pj).  Ixxxix-cvi  (New  Shak- 
spere  Soc). 


214  LONDON 

to  adorn  her  palace.  London  was  one  of  those  cities, 
and  the  fresco  still  remains  there,  blurred  and  spoiled, 
but  still  showing  London  in  outline  much  as  Norden 
represented  it  in  1593. 

This    was   the   Tudor    London    which   was   to    be 
visited    by   the   foreign  traveller,    as    Paris,    Vienna, 
Venice,  and  Florence,  and   other  cities  had  hitherto 
been    visited.     In  all  the  visitings   to   this  country, 
London    was   ever   the   foremost  glory  of  England. 
Frederick,  Duke  of  Wirtemberg,  came  in  1592.     On 
the    10th    of  August,  having   arrived   at    Gravesend 
overland  from  Dover,   "  a   small  vessel  was   ordered 
and  we  embarked  upon  the  river  Thames,  which  is 
tolerably  broad,  and  in  which  there  are  many  swans. 
We   then  sailed   towards  London.     Upon   the  left- 
hand  side  of  the  river  we  passed  the   beautiful   and 
pleasant    royal    palace    of    Greenwich."      He   went 
straight    to    London.       It    is   described    as    a   large, 
excellent,    and    mighty   city   of  business.      Most    of 
the  inhabitants   are  employed  in  buying  and  selling 
merchandise   and   trading  in  almost  every  corner  of 
the  world  ;  it  is  a  very  populous  city,  so  that  one  can 
scarcely   pass    along   the  streets  on  account    of  the 
throng ;  the  inhabitants  are  magnificently  apparelled, 
and  are  extremely  proud  and  overbearing,  and  because 
the  greater  part  of  them  seldom  go  into  other  countries, 
but  always  remain  in  their  houses  in  the  city  attending 
to  their  business,  they  care  little  for  foreigners,  but 
scoff  and  laugh  at  them,  and  there  is  a  mass  of  other 
criticism.     On    the    14tli    August  his    Highness   and 


t  B- 


VtflmynJ}, 


WHITEHALL,    about    1560. 
From  Ralph  Agas'  Map. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     21.5 

suite  went  in  wherries  (gundeln — gondolas)  to  the 
beautiful  and  royal  church  called  Westminster,  and 
he  went  to  a  stately  banquet  at  the  residence  of 
Beauvois,  the  French  ambassador,  who  had  a  beautiful 
country  house  distant  from  London  about  two  English 
miles,  that  is,  at  Hackney.  He  discussed  many  things, 
and  among  them  the  possibility  of  invasion,  when  he 
was  told  that  the  soldiers  were  excellent,  but  they  do 
not  willingly  go  on  foreign  service,  and  that  in  case 
of  war  with  an  enemy  wishing  to  subdue  England 
entirely,  the  enemy  would  have  to  make  up  his  mind 
to  fight  eight  pitched  battles  and  to  confront  from 
thirty  to  forty  thousand  men  in  each.^ 

Another  Prince  of  Wirtemberg,  Lewis  Frederick, 
came  over  in  1610,  and  was  conducted  to  London  from 
Gravesend  in  the  royal  barges,  and  lodged  in  the  inn 
called  "  The  Black  Eagle."  Among  the  ceremonies 
the  prince  took  part  in  was  a  visit  to  the  resident  am- 
bassador of  the  States  of  the  United  Provinces,  "  who 
lives  out  of  the  city  opposite  Westminster,  in  a  very 
fine  house  of  his  own,  and  with  beautiful  gardens 
round  about :  it  is  called  Sudlambet,"  South  Lambeth.- 

The  most  interesting  of  all  travelled  accounts  is, 
of  course,  that  of  Paul  Hentzner  in  1598.  His 
account  of  his  reception  at  Greenwich  Palace  is  well 
known  and  has  been  often  quoted.  It  was  here,  he 
says,  Elizabeth  the  present  queen  was  born,  and  here 

^  W.  B.  Rye,  England  as  seen  by  Foreigners,  temp.  Eliz.  and  James, 
pp.  1-53. 

-  Ibid.,  pp.  57-66. 


216  LONDON 

she  generally  resides,  particularly  in  summer,  for  the 
deliffhtfulness  of  its  situation.^  Sources  not  so  well 
known,  however,  show  some  aspects  of  Tudor  London 
and  its  palace  on  the  Thames  which  were  not  revealed 
by  the  traveller  from  continental  Europe.  Queen 
Elizabeth  loved  her  Greenwich  home  in  a  special 
way,  and  we  have  a  letter  in  the  Rutland  collection, 
dated  2nd  June  1583,  which  describes  how  "  Her 
Majesty  cam  yesterday  to  Greenwich  from  my  Lord 
Treasurer's.  She  was  never  in  any  place  better  pleased, 
and  sure  the  howse,  garden,  and  walks  may  compare 
with  any  delicat  place  in  I  tally.'" " 

We  cannot  doubt  that  the  London  of  this  age — 
Tudor  and  Stuart  London,  that  is — could  bear  this 
comparison.  The  architectural  glories  coming  there- 
from would  tell  us  this,  even  if  nothing  else  did. 
But  if  the  descriptions  by  visitors,  by  travelled 
foreigners,  all  bear  testimony  to  this  aspect  of  Tudor 
London,  there  are  also  fragments  more  precious 
because  they  were  not  written  for  the  public  eye. 
One  such  fragment,  a  little  later  in  date  but  in  spirit 
belonging  to  this  period,  "  An  English  Traveler's 
first  curiosity  :  or  the  knowledge  of  his  owne  countrey 
by  Henry  Belasyse,  1657,"  gives  us  such  a  glimpse  of 
London  amidst  the  wider  view  he  is  taking  as  to  stir 
one's  imagination.  It  begins  with  a  description  of 
Greenwich,^  which  "is  more  famous  and  beautifull  for 

'    Hciitziier's  Journey  into  Engkmd,  p.  47. 

^  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  xii.  (iv.),  p.  150. 

^  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  I'arious  Collections,  ii.  pp.  201-202. 


(/)  i; 

CO  -5 

CC  §• 

O  .2 

CO 

Z  §• 

<  E 

a 

Z  E 

O  o 

z 

o 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     217 


218  LONDON 

its  situation  then  for  the  castle  [Windsor]  itselfe. 
Here  is  the  best  prospect  in  Europe  sayth  judicious 
Barckley  in  his  Icon  Amviarurn,  for  under  the  hill 
runneth  Themms,  and  from  thence  to  London  is 
loaden  with  so  many  tall  ships  that  their  verry  masts 
looke  like  an  old  forest.  On  boath  sides  of  the  river 
are  seen  pleasant  green  meadowes  like  so  many 
gardens,  and  at  the  end  of  the  prospect  a  goodly  great 
citty,  London,  shewing  its  broad  sides ;  all  which 
concurring  together  make  that  this  castle  may  most 
deservedly  be  called  the  Belvidere  of  Europe;  neither 
that  of  St  Germains  in  France,  of  Frescati  in  Italy,  or 
of  Constantinople  in  Greece  comeing  neere  this  pros- 
pect for  trew  beauty  and  pleasantness.  The  chief 
citty  of  England,  and  in  my  opinion  the  greatest  of 
Europe  but  one,  Paris,  is  London.  Theires  nothing 
heare  but  hansome.  Hansome  inhabitants ;  rich 
shopps,  tow  rare  exchanges,  noble  palaces  upon  the 
rivers  side  ;  streets  both  large  and  long,  neat  buildings 
and  walkes  of  the  Inns  of  Courts,  curious  feilds  on  all 
sides  of  it,  exquisit  markets  in  it  well  stored  with  all 
provisions  ;  the  commodity  of  the  river  and  boates,  the 
prodigious  bridge,  the  dew  and  dayly  visit  of  the  ebbing 
and  flowing  of  the  sea  in  the  Themms,  which,  visiting 
London  dewly  once  a  day,  either  bringeth  to  it,  or 
carryeth  from  it,  all  merchandise  the  world  can  afForde 
it,  or  it  the  world.  The  greatest  ships  that  ride  upon 
the  sea  come  and  unload  in  London  in  the  very  harte 
of  the  towne." 

The  grandeiH'  that  had  come  to  Tudor  London  did 


V 

^  > 

<  -5 

^^: 

o 
Q  "• 
-J  S 
O    -o 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     219 

not  wipe  out  the  black  spots  in  it.  Bishop  Latimer 
could  write  as  follows  of  the  very  centre :  "  I  think 
verily  that  many  a  man  taketli  his  death  in  Paul's 
churchyard,  and  this  I  speak  of  experience,  for  1  myself, 
when  I  have  been  there  in  some  mornings  to  hear  the 
sermons,  have  felt  such  an  ill-favoured,  unwholesome 
sa\our  that  I  was  the  worse  for  it  a  great  while 
after."  ^  London  was  also  worse  for  it  in  that  dismal 
year  of  the  plague  Avhich  followed  surely  upon  such 
conditions. 

Expansions  of  the  city  beyond  the  walls  brought 
\ery  direct  results  upon  London.  It  began  very 
early  to  affect  the  government  of  London,  and  I 
will  quote  one  or  two  curious  pieces  of  evidence  of 
this.  The  western  suburbs,  extending  to  the  Strand 
and  to  Holborn,  began  to  be  occupied  by  business 
people,  who  did  not  have  over  them  the  strict 
government  of  the  city.  In  1590  an  outbreak  took 
place,  and  an  assault  was  made  upon  Lincoln's  Inn, 
for  what  purpose  is  not  very  clear.  We  find  an 
account  of  this  disturbance  in  a  proclamation  issued 
by  the  queen  on  the  23rd  September,  in  the  "  thirty- 
second  yeere  of  her  raign,"  and  dated  from  Ely  Place. 
This  proclamation  sets  forth  particulars  which  illus- 
trate the  entire  absence  of  any  properly  constituted 
government  outside  the  city. 

"  Where  the  Queenes  most  excellent  maiestie 
being  giuen  to   understand  of  a  very  great  outrage 

^  Bishop  Latimer's  Sermons,  edited  by  l)r  John  VVatkiiis,  1 824, 
vol.  ii.  p.  282. 


220  LONDON 

lately  committed  by  some  apprentices  and  others, 
being  masterlesse  men  and  vagrant  persons  in  and 
about  the  surburbs  of  the  Citie  of  London,  in  assault- 
ing of  the  house  of  Lincolnes  Inne  and  the  breaking 
and  spoyling  of  diners  chambers  in  the  said  house, 
which  offences  her  highnesse  is  minded  to  haue  to 
be  duely  examined  and  thereupon  aswel  the  offenders 
therein,  as  also  such  persons  of  the  said  house  of 
Lincolnes  Inne  as  did  by  any  meanes  giue  any 
occasion  to  prouoke  the  same  unlawful  outrage,  to 
be  duely  and  very  seuerely  punished  according  to 
their  demerits,  hath  therefore  thought  good  for  the 
better  auoyding  of  such  like  outrages  hereafter, 
straightly  to  charge  and  command  all  such  as  be 
any  householders  within  the  seuerall  parishes  of  S. 
Dunstanes,  S.  Brides,  S.  Andrewes  in  Holborne,  S. 
Giles  in  the  Field,  S.  Martin  in  the  Field,  the  Strond, 
and  S.  Clement  without  the  Temple  Barre,  that  they 
and  euery  of  them  doe  cause  all  their  apprentices, 
journeymen,  servants,  and  family  in  their  seuerall 
houses,  other  than  such  as  shall  be  appointed  to  keepe 
seuerall  watches,  to  tarry  and  abide  within  their 
seuerall  houses,  and  not  to  be  suffered  to  goe  abroad 
after  nine  of  the  clocke  at  night  upon  paine  of  im- 
prisonment." 

This  regulation  was  to  be  in  force  for  six  days 
only,  and  one  cannot  help  wondering  why  such 
a  regulation  could  possibly  be  allowed.  Another 
example  comes  from  the  very  source  of  its  origin. 
Among  the   Hatfield   papers  is  a  certificate  of  the 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     221 

under-bailiff  of  Westminster  {13th  September  1.598), 
"touching  the  search  which  was  done  according  to 
Cecil's  direction.  Such  persons  as  were  taken  with- 
in the  liberty  were  carried  before  the  Lord  Mayor 
and  Justices,  who  punished  some,  and  others  had 
certificate  to  convey  them  whether  they  should  go. 
Divers  the  bakers  of  Westminster  much  forget  them- 
selves in  breaking  that  assize  in  their  bread  that  is 
held  in  London.  He  has  no  means  in  the  absence 
of  the  clerk  of  the  market  to  compel  them  to  observe 
good  assize,  except  it  shall  please  Cecil  to  give 
warrant  for  such  assize  to  be  kept  there  as  is  in 
London,  and  in  default  punishment  to  be  inflicted 
according  to  law."^ 

There  can  be  no  question  about  such  instances  as 
these.  The  governance  of  London  was  slipping 
away.  It  could  not  grasp  the  problem  of  expansion 
when  it  began  under  the  Tudors.  A  half  measure 
was  attempted  in  1 636  by  incorporating  "  divers 
places  in  the  city  and  suburbs,  and  three  miles 
compass  of  the  same,"  and  taking  into  their  body 
"  as  well  Freemen  of  London,  as  others  of  the  King's 
subjects  using  any  art,  occupation  or  mystery  or 
trade  by  retail,  inhabiting  within  their  precincts, 
except  weavers,  brickmakers,  and  tilemakers,  who 
were  reserved  till  further  order  should  be  given 
for  their  admittance."-  This  was  done  by  order  in 
council  against   the    objections   of  the    city  that    it 

1   Hist.  MSS.  Com.  (Hatfield,  viii.),  p.  344. 
-  Rememhrancia,  pp.  227-229. 


222  LONDON 

"  would  be  very  prejudicial  to  the  liberties  and 
privileges  of  the  city,"  and  these  self-same  objections 
of  the  city  remain  to  this  day. 

Perhaps  these  difficulties  are  the  natural  following 
from  others,  but  there  was  a  definite  divergence  from 
the  ancient  ideas  of  civic  government  in  1580. 
Edward  VI.,  boy  king  that  he  was,  lived  long  enough 
to  show  that  he  aimed  at  setting  right  some  of  the 
evils  which  flowed  from  the  revolutionary  doings  of 
his  father.  Among  his  most  signal  acts  towards  this 
purpose  is  his  gift  of  his  palace  of  Bridewell — "  a 
faire  purchased  place  called  Bridewell "  ^ — in  the 
city  to  the  poor  of  London.  Fortunately,  there  has 
been  preserved  the  scheme  for  the  management  of 
this  institution,  and  an  examination  reveals  two 
important  facts :  first,  the  remarkable  character  of 
the  provisions  themselves ;  secondly,  their  entire  in- 
dependence of  city  government.  The  scheme  was 
issued  in  1580,  and  I  must  quote  certain  of  its  more 
important  clauses. 

The  title  of  the  document  is  "  Orders  appointed 
to  be  executed  in  the  Cittie  of  London,  for  setting 
roges  and  idle  persons  to  worke,  and  for  releefe  of 
the  poore."  The  clauses  which  I  must  quote  are  as 
follows : — 

"  1.  For  releefe  of  the  poore,  and  for  setting  to 
worke  of  vagaraunt  people,  there  are  to  be  set  up 
in  Bridewell  certaine  artes,  occupations,  workes,  and 
labours." 

1   Tell-TroUies  New  Yeares  Gift,  1593  (New  Shakspere  Soc),  p.  22. 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     223 

"  2.  There  are  to  be  pro\ided  stoeke  tV-  tooles  for 
those  workes.  There  is  to  be  provided  bedding, 
apparrell,  and  dyet  for  those  poore  to  be  set  to 
worke. " 


King  Edward  \'I.  presenting  the  Charters  of  the  Uridewi. 


jlhlcni  hospitals. 


"  4.  Within  convenient  time  after  the  day  hmitted 
by  such  Proclamation  a  generall  search  shalbe  made, 
and  lykewise  new  generall  searches  from  time  to 
time  as  shalbe  requisite,  throughout  the  Cittie  and 
the  liberties  therof  at  one  instant,  &  all  the  vagarants 
that  shalbe  there  founde  shalbe  brought  to  Bridewell 
to  be  examined." 


224  LONDON 

"  8.  Those  whom  the  Cittie  by  I^aw  is  charged  to 
provide  for  and  are  able  to  work,  shalbe  received  into 
Bridewell,  and  there  kept  with  thin  diet,  onely  suffic- 
ing to  sustaine  them  in  health,  and  shalbe  set  to 
work  in  such  of  the  workes,  labours,  and  occupations 
as  they  shall  be  found  fittest  for." 

"  25.  By  the  Inquest  shalbe  there  enquired,  if 
[there  be  any]  idle  persons,  roges,  vagabunds,  and 
other  suspect  persons  which  lyve  disorderly  or 
suspiciously  or  spend  their  times  at  Bowling  allies, 
playes,  and  other  places  unthriftily :  &  whether  the 
meane  officers  doo  their  dueties,  and  all  other 
matters,  as  in  the  charge  of  leetes :  and  that  speedy 
processe  be  used  according  to  the  law  for  the  re- 
formation without  delay." 

"  28.  In  every  parrish  a  general  survey  to  be 
made,  by  the  Constable,  Churchwardens,  Collectors 
for  the  poore,  and  vi.  other  of  the  Parishners  of  all 
their  poore  and  needy e  neighbors  of  the  Parish,  viz. 
of  every  house  particularly,  the  names  of  the  dwellers, 
the  children  and  servauntes,  the  sexe  and  age  of 
every  one,  and  which  be  able  to  labour  and  where- 
upon, and  who  be  utterly  impotent  to  any  labour." 

"  41.  Of  such  companies  of  this  City  as  wel  the 
worshipfull  as  the  inferior  as  the  governors  of  Bride- 
wel  shall  find  to  be  requisite  according  to  the  qualitie 
of  the  artes  or  labors  that  are  to  be  overseene,  there 
shalbe  appointed  persons  to  attend,  so  as  there  may 
be  every  day  two  attending  at  Bridewell  to  oversee 
the  workes,  and  to  give  knowledge  of  the  defaults 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISM     225 

which  they  shal  find,  to  the  governours,  on  paine  of 
XX.  shiUings  to  be  payed  to  the  wardens  if  they 
appoynt  not,  being  therunto  required  by  the  space 
of  a  weeke  before,  (Sc  on  paines  of  vi.  shillings  viii. 
pence  to  be  paid  by  every  of  the  parties  appointed, 
if  he  attend  not  being  warned  three  daies  before 
at  the  least,  the  sayd  paines  to  be  to  the  use 
of  the  poore  in  Bridewell  and  to  be  levied  by 
distresse." 

"  42.  Where  in  the  Savoy  are  lodged  nightly  great 
numbers  of  idle  wicked  persons,  cutpurses,  cousiners, 
and  such  other  theeves,  &  there  in  the  night  are 
hidden  from  officers  and  in  the  day  do  use  their 
rogish  life,  so  that  the  same  place  honorably  ordeined 
is  by  such  abuse  made  a  noursery  of  roges,  theeves, 
idle  and  dronken  persons  :  for  remedy  therof,  request 
to  be  made  to  the  maister  of  that  house,  that  speciall 
persons  be  appoynted  to  examine  such  as  shall  come 
to  lodge  in  the  Savoy  that  such  be  lodged  there  as 
be  of  honest  fame,  poore  men  comming  up  for  their 
sutes  or  causes,  or  such  as  are  knowen  &  can  gyve 
accompt  of  their  labour  in  the  day  time,  and  no 
other :  c^:  if  any  such  lewde  roges  be  founde  there, 
the  officers  of  the  Savoy  or  the  Justices  to  whom  it 
may  appertaine  may  send  them  to  such  place  as  they 
ought  to  be  sent  by  lawe." 

"49 Artes,    Occupations,     Labors,    and 

Works  to  be  set  up  in  Bridewell. 

"  The  worke  in  the  Milles  ;  the  worke  in  the  Lighter 

<!v:  unlading  of  Sand ;  the  carying  of  sand  ;   making 

15 


226  LONDON 

of  shoes ;  thicking  of  Cappes  by  hand  and  foote ; 
knitting  of  hose  ;  spinning  of  Linnen  yarne  ;  spinning 
of  Candell  weeke ;  making  of  Packthreed  ;  drawing 
of  wier  ;  making  of  woll  Cardes  ;  making  of  Nayles  ; 
making  of  gloves ;  making  of  Combes ;  making  of 
Inkle  and  tape ;  making  of  silke  Lace ;  making  of 
Aparrell  for  the  house ;  spinning  of  wollen  yrne ; 
making  of  Pinnes  ;  making  of  Pointes ;  making  of 
Knives ;  making  of  Tennise-balles  ;  making  of  Bayes  ; 
making  of  Feltes  ;  picking  of  woll  for  Felts ;  or  any 
other  that  may  fall  in  practise." 

•'5L  To  avoid  the  perill  that  the  setting  a  worke 
of  vagrants  in  the  said  Artes  at  Bridewell  might  be 
to  the  overthrow  of  the  w^orke  and  to  the  undoing  of 
poore  cittizens  housholders,  and  their  families  that 
live  by  working  in  the  same  arts  for  other,  or  by 
retaling  of  things  wrought :  Therfore  the  governours 
of  Bridwell  shall  consult  with  the  Wardens  and 
discrete  men  of  those  companies  that  use  the  work- 
ing or  selling  of  such  things  as  shalbe  wrought 
in  Bridewel,  as  shoomakers  and  other,  that  the 
said  companies  and  their  housholders  shal  deliver 
their  worke  to  such  number  in  Bridwel  as  they 
may  with  the  benefit  of  their  company,  and  shall 
pay  for  the  same  at  reasonable  rates  to  their 
profit." 

"  54.  For  the  better  releefe  of  the  poore,  the 
leather  that  shalbe  founde  faulty  in  this  Citty  and 
seised  as  forfayted,  shall  never  for  any  price  come 
to  the  use  of  the  searchers,  or  sealers  of  leather,  but 


DTSRITPTION  OF  COMMERCIALISIVI     227 

sIkiII  wholy  be  to  Christes  hospital,  and  Hridewell, 
to  be  there  made  into  shooes  for  the  poore,  by 
the  poore  that  shall  worke  there :  and  the  searchers 
shall  have  their  portion  in  money  according  to  the 
praisement." 

"  55.  Provision  is  to  be  made  for  apparell,  bedding, 
and  meate  for  the  sayd  poore,  for  tooles,  and  for 
stocke  and  stuffe  for  the  occupations,  for  making  of 
Milles,  and  buying  of  Lighters,  for  fees  and  wages 
of  Bedelles  and  other  necessary  poore  attendauntes : 
and  therfore  a  competent  &  sufficient  portion  of 
money  is  to  be  had,  which  by  an  estimate  for  one 
yeere  accompting  for  ii,  c.  [200]  persons  amounteth 
about  ii,  m,  1.  [£2000]." 

"  66.  That  the  preachers  be  moved  at  the  sermons 
at  the  Crosse  &  other  convenient  times,  specially  in 
the  terme  time,  cV'  that  other  good  notorious  meanes 
be  used,  to  require  both  Citizens,  Artificers,  and 
other,  and  also  all  farmers  and  other  for  husbandry, 
and  gentlemen  and  other  for  their  kitchins  ik  other 
services,  to  take  servants  and  children  both  out  of 
Bridewell  and  Christs  Hospitall  at  their  pleasures, 
with  declaration  what  a  charitable  deed  it  shalbe  not 
onely  for  the  releefe  of  those  whom  they  shall  so  take 
into  service,  but  also  of  multitudes  of  other  that  shall 
from  time  to  time  be  taken  into  the  hospitals  in  their 
places,  and  so  be  preserved  from  perishing,  with  offer 
also  that  they  shall  have  them  conveniently  apparelled 
&  bound  with  them  for  any  competent  number  of 
yeeres,  with  further  declaration  that  many  of  tliem 


228  LONDON 

be  of  toward  quallities  in  readyng,  wryting,  Grammer, 
and  Musike."  ^ 

These  provisions  show  the  changes  which  the 
destruction  of  the  monasteries  had  brought  about,  as 
well  as  the  methods  adopted  to  meet  the  distress 
caused  by  the  changes.  They  are  far-reaching  and 
representative  of  the  new  order  of  things,  while  their 
practical  value,  even  from  the  point  of  view  of  modern 
industrial  requirements,  is  self-evident.  The  economic 
necessities  are  met  by  wise  provisions  (51),  and  there 
is  an  evident  endeavour  to  meet  the  great  necessity 
by  a  careful  study  of  the  situation  likely  to  be  pro- 
duced by  this  new  measure  of  state  control  over  the 
labour  of  the  very  poor.  Incidentally,  we  have  a 
somewhat  lurid  picture  of  the  lower  life  of  Tudor 
London. 

The  king  who  was  doing  this  for  London  was  doing 
a  great  thing  in  a  great  manner,  but  the  manner 
of  doing  it  reveals  an  encroachment  upon  the  city 
organisation.  The  mayor  is  represented  in  a  con- 
temporary picture  as  receiving  the  royal  charter,^  but 
neither  mayor  nor  council  has  any  part  in  the 
control  of  this  new  plan  of  meeting  the  needs  of 
the  poor  in  London.  The  gilds  in  their  new  form 
of  companies  have  certain  practical   duties   to  per- 

1  This  is  printed  from  a  fuller  transcript  contributed  to  the 
Ajitujuarij ,  vol.  xiii.  pj).  143-146,  by  Dr  Charles  Gross. 

-  Ante,  p.  223.  "  A  picture  of  Edward  VI.  delivering  to  the  Lord 
Mayor  of  London  his  royal  cliarter  whereby  he  gave  up  his  royal 
palace  of  Bridewell  to  be  converted  into  an  hosjntal  and  workhouse  " 
was  "in  the  great  hall  at  liridewell  "  ;   Afc/uvulogia,  vol.  iii.  p.  I90. 


2t 


DISRUPTION  OF  COMiAIERCIAlJSM     229 

form,  but  the  city  has  no  constitutional  powers,  and 
in  its  place  appear  the  smaller  units  of  the  parish. 
AVhether  the  parish  was  fixed  upon  as  representative 
of  the  religious  authorities  that  had  been  swept  away 
is  not  quite  clear,  but  even  then  the  entire  ignoring 
of  the  city  authority  betokens  a  change  which  is  only 
at  the  beginning  of  changes  now  rapidly  to  take 
place,  ^^^hether  the  change  was  deliberate  and 
determined  it  is  impossible  to  say,  but  on  the  whole 
it  seems  to  flow  from  the  new  condition  of  things 
quite  naturally,  and  looks  as  if  the  bringing  in  of  the 
parish  into  the  local  government  of  the  city,  contra 
the  old  city  form  of  government,  was  the  result  not 
the  cause  of  the  changes  which  had  eaten  into  Tudor 
liOndon.  The  new  policy  spread  deeply  into  the 
country  under  the  great  poor  law  act  of  Elizabeth, 
and  the  country  has  not  yet  recovered  from  the 
fissure  in  its  institutional  system  which  it  produced, 
and  which  all  later  legislation  has  increased. 

The  events  themselves  bring  us  into  close  touch 
with  government  by  proclamation,  or  even  by  the 
direction  of  the  chief  minister  of  the  crown,  and  this 
is  not  government,  but  a  merely  hopeless  system  of 
non-government.  How  hopeless  may  be  gathered 
from  a  letter  from  the  Lord  Mayor  to  the  Lord 
Treasurer,  in  which  it  was  necessary  to  explain  that 
"  the  Mayor  of  the  city  for  the  time  being  and  the 
Aldermen  who  had  passed  the  chair,  with  the 
Recorder,  were  .lustices  of  the  Peace  for  the  county 
of  the  city  of  London  and  the  suburbs  thereof  in  as 


230  LONDON 

ample  a  manner  as  any  other  Justices  of  Peace  in 
other  counties  of  the  reahn,"  and  to  urge  that  "  the 
houses  in  the  heart  of  the  city,  being  daily  filled  with 
a  great  multitude  of  people  of  the  meaner  sort,"  were 
under  the  authority  of  the  city,  and  that  "  it  w^ould 
greatly  prejudice  the  citizens  if  they  should  be 
delivered  from  their  authority."^  The  I^ondon  with 
which  we  have  been  in  touch  during  the  centuries 
over  which  we  have  travelled  is  not  this  London — the 
London  of  new  and  unconnected  systems  of  govern- 
ment, the  I^ondon  expanding  into  an  area  which  is 
devoid  of  government,  the  London  which  has  to  ex- 
plain itself.  It  leaves  Tudor  London  with  a  blot 
upon  its  escutcheon — a  great  and  growing  London, 
no  doubt,  but  a  London  which  was  beginning  not  to 
know  or  understand  itself. 

Despite  its  greatness,  despite  the  greatness  of  Tudor 
thought  and  action,  w^e  have  therefore  to  leave  this 
chapter  of  London  history  with  a  despondent  note. 
London  was  getting  out  of  hand.  Expansion  was  its 
dominant  feature,  but  it  was  unregulated  expansion. 
We  are  landed  into  commercialism  with  the  old 
communal  regulated  life  of  the  city  left  far  behind, 
never  again  to  assume  a  prominent  position,  but  with 
patches  of  it  here  and  there  in  survival,  serving  only 
the  purpose  of  hiding  up  the  real  change  that  had 
come.  Tudor  London  was  modern  London  to  all 
intents  and  purposes.  We  realise  this  in  all  sorts  of 
ways — from    the   plays  which   depict  life  there,  still 

1   licmevihruncia,  p.  43. 


-.4 


c 


DISIUTPTTON  OF  COMINTKUCTALISM     i>;n 

better  from  the  incidental  glimpses  of  its  citizen  life 
which  arise  in  contemporary  correspondence  and 
memoirs.  The  reading  is  not  pleasant,  and  one  feels 
it  is  exaggerated.  But  some  facts  cannot  be  exag- 
gerated. Gallant  lords,  as  we  have  seen,  might  tell 
foreign  princes  of  the  forces  that  would  meet  an 
invader,  but  Londoners  would  bet  against  the  chances 
of  invasion,  as  they  do  now,  not  because  they  felt  they 
could  tackle  the  emergency  when  it  arose,  but  because 
of  their  indifference  to  the  issue.  How  intensely 
modern,  for  instance,  how,  indeed,  anti-Plantagenet. 
is  its  habit  of  betting  upon  the  most  serious  subjects, 
its  habit  of  thinking  its  commercial  success  to  be  a 
sort  of  protection  against  all  evil.  An  example  occurs 
in  1590,  when  a  letter,  25th  March,  addressed  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  by  Sir  Thomas  Tresame, 
has  the  following  passage :  "  Though  your  lordships 
who  have  certain  intelligence  from  foreign  parts  do 
assuredly  know  of  a  mighty  preparation  of  forces  in 
Spain  to  attempt  the  speedy  invading  of  this  realm, 
yet  there  are  very  many  Protestants  that  will  not  in 
any  sort  believe  it ;  that  wagers  will  be  laid  five  to 
one,  ten  to  one,  yea,  twenty  to  one,  that  no  invasion 
will  be  here  attempted  this  year."^  We  here  get 
Tudor  London  in  right  perspective.  It  is  the  casual 
observer's  point  of  view,  more  telling  on  that  account 
than  the  poet,  the  satirist,  or  the  pamphleteer,  who 
concentrate  attention  upon  exaggerations  and  leave 
the  ordinary  alone. 

^  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  Jaiious  Collections,  iii.  p.  5Q  (Tresham  Papers). 


232  LONDON 

London  is  broken  in  half  by  the  Tudor  changes — 
the  earher  half  becoming  more  and  more  distant  and 
in  the  mist.  The  fact  is,  we  cannot  altogether  trust 
Tudor  London.  The  break  with  the  past  was  inevit- 
able and  was  politic.  But  London  proceeded  on  its 
way  with  no  hold  on  the  future.  It  dwindled  into 
Stuart  London,  when  it  might  have  commanded 
Stuart  London,  commanded  it  as  effectually  as 
English  London  commanded  the  change  into  Norman 
London.  It  had  great  moments,  but  no  real  con- 
tinuity from  and  to  great  moments,  and  that  we  can- 
not discriminate  between  Tudor  and  Stuart  London 
shows  how  great  has  been  the  change.  Nothing 
seems  to  come  from  Tudor  London.  There  is  no 
inheritance  from  it,  and  Stuart  and  Georgian  London 
stumble  upon  their  tasks  unaided.  I  have  said  it 
was  difficult  to  carry  the  lines  of  continuity  across 
the  great  chasm  separating  Tudor  and  Plantagenet 
London,  and  I  have  almost  proved  that  it  is  an 
impossibility.     The  paradox  must  stand. 


CHAPTER   IX 

DECADENCE 

It  is  not  pleasant  to  see  the  title  of  this  chapter  and 
to  know  that  it  is  justified.  London  suffered,  as  all 
the  country  suffered,  at  the  hands  of  the  Stuarts, 
though  there  is  not  wanting  evidence  that  in  the 
struggle  it  once  or  twice  lifted  its  head  above  the 
sordid  concepts  of  the  period  and  was  in  the  eyes  of 
the  governing  powers  something  of  the  same  sort  of 
city  as  Plantagenet  sovereigns  had  had  to  deal  with. 

The  evidence  for  this  is  somewhat  remarkable. 
It  relates  to  the  old  form  of  relationship  between  city 
and  sovereignty,  and  is  contained  either  in  a  very 
strangely  accidental  use  of  expressions  which  formerly 
were  constitutional  formulas  or  in  a  resuscitation  of 
these  formula?  under  the  stress  of  circumstances  which 
certainly  were  calculated  to  call  them  forth  if  they 
were  there  to  be  called  forth. 

We  must  go  back  a  little  towards  Tudor  times  to 
understand  how  Stuart  events  exemplify  continuity 
in  relationship  to  the  sovereignty.  Tudor  monarchs 
were  great  and  masterful  men  and  women.  Stuart 
monarchs  were  wrong-headed  and,  for  the  most  part, 
wrong-hearted.     The  Tudors  never  so  twisted  events 

233 


234  LONDON 

as  to  bring  about  a  conscious  upsetting  of  inner  work- 
ings. The  Stuarts  were  constantly  doing  it,  and  their 
whole  attitude  to  the  cities  and  boroughs  affords  evi- 
dence of  this,  both  in  thought  and  action.  The  Stuarts 
were,  in  fact,  bad  copies  of  the  Tudors,  with  just 
enough  genius  to  comprehend  the  Tudor  greatness, 
but  with  not  enough  character  to  profit  by  the  com- 
prehension. It  is  in  this  detrimental  way  that  Stuart 
events  come  to  us  as  continuations  of  Tudor  ideals. 
Even  Stuart  events,  however,  illustrate,  if  fitfully,  the 
older  conditions.  We  cannot  get  at  the  very  heart 
of  the  events,  but  on  the  surface  there  is  enough  to 
indicate  what  London  was  feeling,  even  if  it  could 
not  always  be  up  and  doing.  A  single  act  will  illus- 
trate this  as  well  as  a  dozen  parallels  to  it,  and  I 
shall  be  able  to  quote  some  documents  which  will  tell 
us  more  of  the  real  Stuart  London  than  even  the 
record  of  definite  acts. 

They  consist  of  letters  and  notes  devoted  to  the 
feelings  and  wishes  of  those  who  take  part  in  the 
public  life,  glimpses  therefore  of  the  real  issues  and 
the  underlying  foundation  of  events.  From  this 
source  we  shall  be  able  to  restore  some  links  in  the 
chain  of  continuity  which  has  appeared  almost  to  be 
broken  under  the  influence  of  Tudor  events. 

Once  more,  by  the  aid  of  such  important  sources 
of  information,  we  shall  turn  to  the  relationship  of 
city  and  state  as  the  principal  element  in  the  history 
of  London.  The  state  now,  it  will  be  remembered, 
has    changed,    and    its    principal    representative,    the 


DECADENCE  235 

personal  sovereignty,  has  changed.  It  is  now  to 
change  once  more,  thanks  to  the  perverseness  of 
Charles  I.  The  House  of  Commons  is  now  to  enter 
into  the  sovereign  power,  claiming  rights  and  privi- 
leges which  the  Stuart  mind  could  not  grasp,  and 
the  struggle  for  these  rights  and  privileges  includes 
events  of  supreme  importance  to  the  position  of 
London  as  a  city  institution. 

In  1G42  the  city  was  in  truth  seething  with  trouble, 
and  this  was  set  forth  in  a  tract  entitled  St  Hillaries 
Tears,  published  in  that  year.  It  gives  us  the  follow- 
ing glimpses  at  the  internal  condition  of  the  capital : 
"  All  along  the  Strand  (lodgings  being  empty)  you 
shall  finde  the  house-keepers  generally  projecting 
where  to  borrow  and  what  to  pawne,  towards  pay- 
ments of  their  quarter's  rents.  ...  I  must  follow  the 
steps  of  many  an  old  letcherous  citizen,  and  walke 
into  London,  where  at  the  Exchange  the  only  question 
that  is  ask't  is,  what  newes  ?  from  Yorke,  Ireland,  and 
the  Parliament.  .  .  .  From  hence  I  travell  to  Guild- 
hall, where  I  finde  the  Lawyers  complaining  of 
infinite  numbers  of  Banckerouts.  .  .  .  Then  at  the 
halls  of  every  severall  company,  where  in  former 
times  all  the  elements  could  scarce  afford  variety  to 
please  the  ingenuous  gluttony  of  one  single  feast, 
now  you  shall  heare  the  meaner  sort  of  tradesmen 
cursing  those  devouring  foxes,  the  masters  and 
wardens,  for  the  infinite  charge  their  insatiate 
stomackes  do  put  them  to ;  from  hence  goe  to  their 
particular  shops,  where  there  is  nothing  amongst  the 


236  LONDON 

tradesmen  but  condoling  the  want  of  the  courtiers' 
money." 

It  was  the  year  when  London  decided  to  stand  out 
against  the  tyranny  of  the  king  and  to  look  up  to 
Parliament  in  a  new  fashion.  The  pamphleteer  turns 
attention  to  the  petty  aspects  of  the  new  situation, 
and  his  observations  help  us  to  realise  the  conditions 


London  and  South wark  from  Whitehall  about  1650. 

then  prevailing.  But  they  must  be  read  by  the  light 
of  other  and  more  serious  conditions  if  we  want  to 
get  at  the  complete  story.  It  is  not  only  what  the 
individual  citizen  was  thinking  and  doing,  but  what 
the  corporate  citizenship  was  doing.  This  was  decisive 
and  clear,  and  there  exists  a  most  admirable  descrip- 
tion in  a  private  letter  in  Lord  Montagu  of  Beaulieu's 
collection  of  manuscripts  in  connection  with  the 
arrest  of  the  five  members  by  King  Charles  I.  The 
letter  is  dated  7th  January  1642,  and  refers  to  events 


X 
U 
OC 

D 
X 

u 


DECADENCE  237 

which  took  place  on  4th  January.     I  quote  only  the 
portions  affecting  the  city. 

"  The  Commons  voted  that  they  conceived  that 
there  was  need  that  the  city  he  put  in  a  defensive  pos- 
ture, and  thereupon  the  Common  Council  voted  it,  and 
sent  order  for  preparation  through  the  city,  and  chose 
a  committee  to  consider  of  further  defence,  and  re- 
solved upon  another  Common  Council  on  Wednesday. 
AVednesday  they  met  in  Guildhall,  and  there  being 
awhile  set,  the  King  came  and  divers  of  his  lords,  and 
there  to  the  Common  Council  made  a  speech,  to  the 
purpose  that  he  went  in  the  way  of  arms  to  the 
Commons'  House  the  day  before  for  fear  of  the 
multitude,  who  had  not  been  there  of  five  days  before, 
and  said  further  that  he  would  have  the  six  men,  but 
they  should  have  fair  trial,  let  them  have  a  fair  charge 
first.  Then  he  said  he  would  throw  down  popery 
(witness  the  Jesuits  that  are  condemned  and  reprieved), 
and  lastly,  he  would  have  the  government  as  formerly 
in  the  Church,  for  the  better  suppressing  Brownists 
and  Separatists,  and  that  he  would  not  endure  them. 
Tlien  he  went  to  Alderman  Garett's,  the  now  Sheriff', 
to  dinner,  and  when  he  went  back,  the  Lord  Mayor 
came  to  wait  upon  his  Majesty,  and  after  the  King 
was  gone,  the  citizens'  wivws  fell  upon  the  Lord 
INIayor,  and  pulled  his  chain  from  his  neck,  and 
called  him  traitor  to  the  city,  and  to  the  liberties  of 
it,  and  had  like  to  have  torn  both  him  and  the 
Recorder  in  pieces.  The  Connnon  Council  resolved 
upon  a  petition  to  the  King,  in  which  they  fly  high 


238  LONDON 

as  to  the  breach  of  privilege  of  ParHament.  The 
Commons  adjourned  to  Guildhall  to  Tuesday  next, 
and  there,  as  a  committee,  intend  to  draw  up  a  charge 
against  such  as  have  broke  privilege  of  Parliament, 
and  if  the  Attorney- General  look  not  to  it,  I  believe 
he  will  '  truss.'  They  will  not  spare  the  Queen,  and 
more,  they  will  resolve  to  conclude  of  a  guard,  and  if 
not  granted  they  will  spare  no  more,  but  to  their 
defence,  and  all  contrive  so  as  that  the  Kingdom  may 
be  preserved,  and  mind  no  more  the  way  formerly 
gone  in.  The  King  had  the  worst  day  in  London 
yesterday  that  ever  he  had,  the  people  crying 
'  privilege  of  Parliament '  [by]  thousands,  and  prayed 
God  to  turn  the  heart  of  the  King,  shutting  up  all 
their  shops,  and  standing  at  their  doors  with  swords 
and  halberds."  ^ 

This  is  a  story  which  might  be  envied  by  even 
Plantagenet  London.  London  stood  for  the  nation, 
not  for  the  Stuart  conception  of  the  kingship.  It 
had  not  in  the  past  had  to  deal  with  a  king  divinely 
ordained.  It  was  not  going  to  recognise  the  new- 
founded  idea  even  under  the  ftiscination  of  the  Stuart 
charm  of  princely  bearing.  There  existed  a  London 
tradition  older  by  far  than  the  newly  evolved  divinity 
of  kingship,  and  that  this  tradition  lay  at  the  back  of 
the  significant  action  just  described  is  almost  certain. 

The  Commons  meeting  in  the  Guildhall  as  a  Com- 
mittee is  the    central   fact   of  these  events,     West- 

1  Ili.si.  MSS.  Com.,  inanuacnpLs  of  Lord  Montagu  of  Bcaulicii, 
p.  111. 


DF.CADENCE  239 

minster  had  been  its  home,  was  indeed  built  for  its 
home  at  the  time  when  London  was  deemed  to  be 
too  powerful  in  her  independence  to  be  trusted  with 
so  great  an  arm  of  the  state.  For  protection  against 
the  encroachment  of  the  personal  sovereign  the 
Commons  now  gladly  turned  to  the  city.  We  learn 
something  of  the  character  of  the  association  thus  set 


Lambeth  and  Whiteliall  about  1650. 

up  from  a  letter  of  1G41-2.  In  that  year  the  House 
of  Commons  sat  in  the  Guildhall,  and  it  declared  that 
"  unless  the  King  will  afford  them  a  guard  of  their 
own  choice  under  the  command  and  direction  of  the 
Earl  of  Essex  their  intention  is  to  adjourn  themselves 
thither  totally."  ^  The  city  and  the  state  are  seen  here 
in  the  closest  relationship,  and  we  shall  have  occasion 
later  on  to  compare  this  position  with  another  position 
when  the  House  of  Commons  had  definitely  won  its 
way  into  the  sovereignty  of  the  nation. 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Cum.,  xii.  (ii.),  p.  'o()2. 


240  LONDON 

Interwedged  in  Stuart  London  is  Commonwealth 
London — a  London  which  is  marked  by  at  least  one 
significant  act  belonging  to  the  evolution  of  London 
from  a  great  city  of  the  past.  This  act  has  already 
been  located.  It  shows  London  in  arms — not  a 
maddened  city  gathering  up  its  weapons  to  meet  a 
sudden  emergency  only  to  lay  them  down  when  it 
had  been  cowed  into  obedience,  but  a  city  organised 
for  war  as  it  was  organised  for  peace,  the  organisation 
for  both  purposes  being  separate  parts  of  one  city 
system.  This  point  must  not  be  lost  sight  of. 
London  was  once  again  a  city  in  arms  as  well  as  a 
city  in  peace.  The  men  who  guided  it  in  peace  were 
the  same  men  as  those  who  led  it  in  war.  The  men 
who  stood  to  arms  were  the  citizens,  not  the  rifF-rafF 
of  the  city,  not  the  hired  soldiers  of  the  city.  The 
whole  spectacle  is  mediitval,  not  of  the  Common- 
wealth ;  it  is  mediseval  as  a  descendant  from  the 
London  of  Anglo-Saxon  times ;  it  is  Anglo-Saxon 
because  it  came  from  the  Roman  Londinium.  Mr 
Sharpe  describes  the  situation  from  the  city  archives. 
Each  alderman  was  directed  "  to  see  that  the  train 
bands,  6000  strong,  w^ere  fully  equipt  without  the 
necessity  of  borrowing  arms  from  the  city  halls  or 
elsewhere  ;  a  double  watch  with  halberds  and  muskets 
was  ordered  to  be  kept  in  each  ward  by  night  and 
day,  and  members  of  the  Common  Council  were 
forbidden  to  leave  their  wards  without  permission."^ 
Nothing   could    be    more    precise.      Aldermen   and 

^  Sharpe,  London  and  the  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  15[). 


DECADENCE  241 

common  councillors  were,  on  the  emergency,  citizens 
in  arms.  And  so,  when  the  Londoners,  in  1643, 
marched  out  as  an  armed  city  to  defend  themselves 
and  their  institutions  on  the  field  of  Newbury,  they 
were  doing  precisely  what  their  predecessors  under 
Ansgar  the  Sheriff'  had  done  at  Hastings,  and  what 
still  earher  predecessors  had  done  at  Crayford. 
There  is  no  act  in  all  London  history  so  significant 
of  continuity  as  this  great  act  of  Commonwealth 
London.  It  is  historical  in  the  deepest  sense  of  the 
word  history.^ 

That  the  continuity  has  been  very  nearly  broken 
does  not  alter  this  position.  The  facts  of  the 
Commonwealth  have  to  be  measured  by  the  facts 
of  the  nearest  precedent,  and  this  is  found  in  the 
array  of  the  city  at  Mile  End  under  Henry  VII L, 
which  has  been  already  described.  Here  it  is  the 
city  in  its  military  form,  and  nothing  but  the  city. 
Under  the  Commonwealth  it  was  not  only  the  city — 
it  was  the  city  with  additions.  The  additions  are, 
of  course,  due  to  the  purely  military  considerations 
which  the  generals  of  the  Commonwealth  army 
demanded.  The  city  in  its  military  aspect,  even  in 
its  partial  military  aspect,  was  due  to  historical 
precedent.  When  it  mustered  in  Finsbury  field  in 
September  1643,  the  regiments  were  not  assemblies 
of  the  wards,  but  units  of  Essex's  great  army.  They 
were,  however,  captained  by  merchants  or  large 
shopkeepers,  citizens  of   London.     Outside   London 

^  See  Sharpe,  London  and  the  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  19.5. 

16 


242  LONDON 

there  is  nothing  of  this  kind.  The  Puritan  gentry 
captained  the  Puritan  army.  London,  however,  was 
led  to  the  field  and  fought  there  on  the  old  principle 
— the  men  who  led  the  citizens  in  constitutional 
matters  in  times  of  peace  led  them  also  in  times  of 
struggle.  The  break  in  the  actual  line  of  continued 
action  from  the  Henry  VI H.  precedent  shows  up  in 
stronger  form  the  strength  of  the  city  position  as  a 
city  in  arms  under  the  Commonwealth,  and  the 
whole  incident  finds  its  place  easily  in  the  series  of 
events  which  belong  to  the  unity  of  London  through 
the  ages. 

Not  even  in  these  tumultuous  proceedings  did 
London  assume  the  position  of  a  revolutionary  city. 
She  acted  constitutionally  during  a  revolutionary 
period,  but,  unlike  Paris,  she  did  not  head  the  revolu- 
tion nor  drive  it  to  a  maddened  excess.  She  stood 
by  to  see  the  supreme  act  carried  through,  not  within 
her  own  walls  but  on  the  ancient  government  site 
at  Westminster.  Her  citizens  no  doubt  formed  up 
outside  the  phalanx  of  L'onsides  to  help  in  the  great 
act.  They  witnessed  the  pitiful  and  heroic  figure 
walking  with  dignity  through  the  royal  park  from 
his  royal  palace  at  St  James  to  his  royal  palace  at 
Whitehall,  there  to  meet  his  doom.  A  man,  an 
artist,  a  soldier,  a  king,  a  king  divinely  appointed  to 
govern,  walked  there  on  his  way  to  meet  the  God 
whom  he  worshipped.  And  England  had  decided  to 
deal  with  him  as  it  had  dealt  with  his  grandmother — 
two  Stuarts  given  this  deadly  lesson  of  the  liberty  of 


DECADENCE  243 

English  folk,  and  yet  they  could  not  learn  it.  The 
occasion  was  great,  the  acts  were  great,  and  London 
endorsed  what  was  heing  done  by  the  leaders  of 
English  policy.  But  her  part  was  not  that  of  the 
rev'olutionist  city,  and  here,  if  anywhere,  she  would 
have  assumed  such  a  part.  It  was  the  greatness  of 
her  historical  and  traditional  position  which  helped 
her  in  this  crisis  as  in  all  others. 

We  turn  to  other  phases  of  the  same  question 
arising  out  of  later  events.  Under  the  Common- 
wealth the  city  and  the  Commons  House  of  I'arlia- 
ment  had  very  close  connections,  not  always  of  a 
friendly  nature,  and  at  almost  every  point  we  find 
city  institutions  being  put  to  their  traditional  use/ 
and  the  Common  Hall  once  more  claimed  by  the 
citizens  as  the  right  place  to  discuss  the  situation. 
Under  James  II.,  ablest  and  most  wrong-headed 
of  the  Stuart  kings,  we  have  yet  another  aspect  of 
the  same  question.  He  understood  the  position  of 
London  well  enough,  and  that  his  understanding 
extended  to  its  ancient  relationship  to  the  sovereign 
power  is  remarkably  evident  from  his  own  letters. 
When  he  was  Duke  of  York,  and  in  Edinburgh, 
he  writes  on  11th  December  1679  to  his  confidant, 
Colonel  Legge :  "•  You  see  all  things  are  running  on 
to  a  commonwealth,  and  if  care  be  not  taken,  the 
Citty   will    be    irrecoverably    lost    and    his    JNIajesty 

^  Mr  Sharpe  relates  the  events  of  this  j^eriod  with  great  clearness 
from  the  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords  and  of  the  House  of 
Commons^  London  and  the  Kingdom,  vol.  ii,  pp.  281-288. 


244  LONDOIS^ 

authority  brought  so  very  low  as  not  to  be  re- 
covered." And  again  on  Christmas  Day  following : 
"  If  great  care  be  not  taken  of  the  Citty,  there  may 
be  great  danger  from  thence,  for  1  know  some  go 
about  to  perswade  the  Citty  to  sett  up  a  republike, 
flattring  them  that  then  they  will  and  ought  to 
gouerne  the  whole  nation."^  Here  is  the  old  point 
once  more  repeated.  It  is  only  now  in  the  fears  of 
the  Court  and  in  the  mind  of  a  prince,  heir  to  the 
throne.  There  was  perhaps  no  real  force  in  it,  but 
the  point  for  us  to  note  is  the  preservation  of  the 
ancient  city  tradition,  which  I  think  is  contained 
in  such  a  record  as  this.  The  prince's  fears  were 
founded  on  the  city's  record  of  its  views. 

Confirmation  of  this  view  is  found  in  a  more  direct 
note,  arising  out  of  an  incident  which  occurred  two 
years  later.  It  relates  to  an  "  affaire  which  was 
brought  before  the  Common  Council  yesterday  [20th 
June  1681],  that  with  some  difficulty  were  brought 
to  submitt  to  the  King's  conditions.  Some  debates 
happened  which  were  not  expected,  and  'tis  said  the 
persons  making  them  were  corrupted,  or  at  least 
withdrawne  from  their  owne  principles.  But  in  the 
conclusion  the  difference  was  104  to  80,  besides  the 
Aldermen  in  the  Pole.  So  that  now  'tis  concluded  that 
the  King  of  England  is  likewise  King  of  London."^ 
This  remarkable  allusion  to  the  ancient  conception 
of  a  king  of  London  may  be  the  merest  accident,  but 

1   Hist.  MSS.  Cum.,  xi.  (v.)  pp.  40,  42. 
-  Jbid.,  xii.  (v.)  p.  55. 


DECADENCE  245 

I  would  suggest  that  it  may  also  have  emanated  from 
the  debate  in  the  Common  Council.  These  sort  of 
things  are  almost  formula? ;  they  cannot  be  said  by 
the  Londoners  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  repeated 
by  those  of  the  seventeenth  century,  unless  the 
common  expression  is  founded  upon  the  common 
idea.  London  remembered  her  ancient  lordship,  and 
that  it  should  burst  forth  amidst  the  disturbing  facts 
of  later  ages  cannot  be  surprising  to  those  who  have 
followed  the  evidence  for  such  a  possibility  in  these 
pages.  The  point  is,  of  course,  not  clear.  We  have 
not  got  a  report  of  that  debate  in  the  Common  Council, 
but  with  "  ancient  custom "  ringing  in  our  ears 
throughout  the  ages,  with  continuity  not  quite  dying 
out  even  in  Tudor  and  Stuart  times,  with  obstinate 
resistance  to  the  king's  conditions  only  to  be  over- 
come by  corruption,  with  principles  definitely  aban- 
doned as  the  price  of  corruption,  there  is  enough 
in  this  singular  revival  of  the  old  expression  to  suggest 
that  it  is  a  revival  also  of  the  old  formula,  and  all  that 
the  formula  included.  The  citizens  who  had  taucrht 
even  Plantagenet  kings  to  fear  the  community  of 
London,  and  who  had  resisted  John  with  the  cry  that 
they  would  have  no  king  but  their  mayor,  had  done 
so  in  obedience  to  rules  which  had  continued  from 
previous  days.  The  citizens  who  held  out  against 
James — eighty-six  of  them — equally  well  understood 
the  historic  position  of  London.  There  is  the  same 
combination  of  factors  in  both  cases — fear  of  the 
city's  power,  reference  to  the  kingship  of  London  — 


24G  LONDON 

and  the  combination  shows  what  perliaps  either  one 
of  the  single  factors  could  not  show,  namely,  that 
the  city  is  once  more  expressing  itself  in  terms  of  its 
traditional  position. 

This  is  the  last  time  we  shall  hear,  even  in 
formula,  of  the  King  of  I^ondon.  It  is  in  truth  the 
last  time  when  the  title  would  have  been  appropriate. 
The  kingship  was  thereafter  to  give  way  to  a  new 
form  of  sovereignty  in  which  the  Commons  House  of 
Parliament  was  the  dominant  power,  and  it  is  part 
of  the  argument  for  the  traditional  origin  of  this 
famous  expression  when  James  II.  was  king  that  the 
city  acted  towards  Parliament  in  these  later  days  in 
precisely  the  same  spirit  as  they  had  acted  towards 
the  king.  We  have  already  noted  one  phase  of  the 
altered  position  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  the 
sovereignty  of  the  realm  in  its  relation  to  London. 
In  due  course  we  shall  have  to  deal  with  another 
phase,  when  city  and  Commons  are  again  in  close 
touch,  though  not  friend li wise.  The  position  in  all 
the  phases  of  Stuart  London  is  extraordinarily  inter- 
esting. It  carries  on  the  continuity  of  events  under 
new  conditions,  but  with  the  old  formulas.  It  is, 
moreover,  not  the  last  link  in  the  chain  of  continuity. 
It  hands  on  the  London  position  to  yet  another  stage. 
As  a  coimecting  link  instead  of  an  ending  to  the  long 
chain  the  Stuart  evidence  gains  added  weight,  and  does 
not  allow  of  the  criticism  that  it  is  the  product  only 
of  unique  circumstances  and  does  not  stand  in  relation- 
ship to  previous   and   after  events.      It  strengthens 


DECADENCE  247 

the  claim  of  the  James  II.  formula  to  take  its 
place  in  the  series  which  has  been  brought  down 
from  the  earliest  times  before  historical  record  had 
begun. 

We  follow  up  this  point  by  another  of  very  con- 
siderable importance.  A  great  and  drastic  change 
was  determined  upon,  probably  as  a  result  of  the 
king's  insight  into  the  position  of  the  city.  The 
change  came  gradually,  however  surely,  and  it  has 
to  be  noted  from  documents  selected  from  a  vast 
mass  of  material.  One  such  document  refers  to  events 
in  1682.  On  30th  October  Sir  William  Richard,  "  a 
brave  Tory,"  was  sworn  Lord  Mayor  of  London  at 
Westminster.  "  The  king  did  not  dine  in  the  city,  the 
Commons  having  refused  to  contribute  to  his  enter- 
tainment as  w^as  usual,  laying  all  the  charge  on  the 
Lord  Mayor.  They  begin  to  lay  their  actions  already 
on  the  last  Lord  Mayor,  but  the  king  as  a  signal 
of  his  good  service  has  promised  to  make  him  a 
baron."  ^  This  is,  of  course,  only  a  signal  of  what 
was  to  come.  Fortunately  when  it  came  we  have 
a  note  of  the  debate  in  the  Common  Council,  one  of 
those  glimpses  of  reality  which  would  have  been 
priceless  in  the  case  just  dealt  with.  A  letter  dated 
4th  October  1683  from  Whitehall  relates  that  "on 
Tuesday  there  w^as  a  Common  Council  in  the  city, 
which  sat  very  late,  and  the  question  of  surrendering 
up  their  charter  being  put,  it  was  carried  in  the 
negative  by  near  eiglity  voices ;  this  was  matter  of 
1  Hid.  MSS.  Com.,  Egtnont  MSS.,  ii.  120. 


248  LONDON 

great  triumph  to  the  Whigs,  who  upon  this  occasion 
shewed  themselves  in  as  great  numbers  and  as  in- 
solent as  they  have  done  any  time  these  three  years, 
and  to  add  to  their  insolence  would  have  had  Sir 
James  Edwards  and  some  of  the  King's  best  friends 
to  carry  up  the  result  of  the  Common  Council  to 
His  Majesty,  but  that  those  gentlemen  had  courage 
and  loyalty  enough  to  refuse  them."  The  city, 
however,  did  not  gain  its  end.  The  letter  goes  on  to 
say,  "Next  morning,  that  is  yesterday,  His  Majesty 
ordered  Mr  Attorney  General  to  enter  up  the 
judgment  which  was  given  last  term  against  the 
charter,  which  was  done  accordingly,  and  this  day 
His  Majesty  in  Council  was  pleased  to  cause  the 
same  Lord  Mayor  to  be  new  sworn,  with  the  title 
by  commission,  as  also  the  two  Sheriffs  and  a  new 
Recorder.  The  city  is  now  to  be  governed  by  the 
Lord  Mayor,  two  sheriffs,  recorder,  and  such  Justices 
of  the  Peace  as  my  Lord  Keeper  shall  think  fit."^ 
There  was  a  gleeful  chuckling  amongst  the  courtiers 
at  Whitehall  at  this  destruction  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. One  of  them,  Sir  L.  Jenkins,  writing  to 
Lord  Dartmouth  on  8th  October  in  that  year,  says : 
"  I  hope  when  you  come  home  you  will  find  his 
Majesty  in  so  much  the  more  ease  and  repose  that 
his  great  city  is  governed  by  his  own  commissions. 
Sir  William  Pritchard  acts,  indeed,  as  I^ord  Mayor,  but 
it  is  by  the  King's  commission,  which  he  received  in 
the  council,  and  took  his  oath  of  Mayor  there  on 
1  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  vii.  p.  366. 


DECADENCE  249 

Thursday  last.  The  sheriffs  elect  (Daniel  and  Dash- 
wood)  act  as  other  sheriffs  in  the  counties  by  com- 
mission. JNIr  Genner  is  recorder  by  commission,  the 
18  honest  aldermen  have  commissions  to  be  justices 
of  the  peace,  and  now  (as  I  am  writing)  they  are 
sitting  very  gravely  at  the  Quarter  Sessions  at 
the  Old  Bailey  instead  of  the  8  whigs  that  make 
up  the  26  aldermen.  There  are  8  commoners  (such 
as  Buckwith,  Newland,  Bathurst)  chosen  by  the  King 
to  be  over  the  vacant  wards."  ^  The  city  was  thus 
placed  entirely  in  the  king's  hands.  Even  the 
privilege  of  being  a  Livery  Company  was  suspended 
and  determined,  and  not  till  1685  were  the  Companies 
granted  liveries  de  novo,  with  a  provision  in  the 
charters  that  His  Majesty  may  by  order  in  Council 
from  time  to  time  displace  or  remove  the  masters, 
wardens,  and  assistants  of  the  several  companies." 
We  know  the  beginning  of  the  shameful  story  as  it 
is  told  by  John  Evelyn — the  seizure  of  the  charter 
by  the  king,  and  its  regrant  to  the  city,  when  both 
king  and  city  played  the  sorriest  parts  in  the  great 
drama  of  London  history."  We  gather  the  disastrous 
results  from  another  source.  In  1688  the  gathering 
storm  against  the  king  produced  a  late  repentance. 
In  October  of  that  fateful  year  the  king,  "  at  the 
Council  or  Cabinet  Council,  told  the  old  aldermen 
that  he  would  restore   the    charter  of  London,    for 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  xi.  (v.)  p.  95. 

2  Hist.  MSS.  Com.  (House  of  Lords  MSS.),  xii.  (vi.)  pp.  292-293. 

3  1  have  related  this  in  my  Making  oj'  London,  p.  208, 


250  T.ONDON 

which  the  bells  rang  that  night  and  bonfires  were 
made  here,  and  having  this  day  (4  Oct.)  sent  my 
Lord  Chancellor  to  the  Guildhall  with  an  instrument 
under  the  broad  seal  by  virtue  of  which  he  dissolved 
the  present  government  of  the  city  and  turned  out 
the  Lord  Mayor,  Sir  John  Eyles,  and  all  the  new 
aldermen,  when  my  Lord  called  on  Sir  William 
Pritchard  to  be  Lord  Mayor  and  all  the  old  aldermen 
to  take  their  places.  Sir  William  Pritchard,  after  six 
hours  disputing  the  matter,  absolutely  refused  to  be 
Lord  Mayor.  As  my  lord  Chancellor  came  into  the 
city  he  was  huzza'd  in  the  streets  as  his  coaches  came 
along  and  in  the  Guildhall,  all  which  I  saw,  and  it  is 
not  hard  to  guess  what  a  strange  alteration  this  has 
made,  there  being  now  no  Lord  Mayor  nor  aldermen."  ^ 
There  is  nothing  more  disastrous  to  London  in  all  her 
records  than  this. 

Everything  institutional,  however,  had  not  slipped 
away  from  London.  There  are  instances  of  con- 
tinuity of  custom,  on  the  ceremonial  side,  which 
tell  for  better  things  than  this,  which  tell  for  the 
view  already  advanced  as  to  the  preservation  in  the 
citizen  mind  of  the  ancient  traditions  of  the  city. 
I  will  quote  one  good  instance.  "  The  Lord  Mayor 
being  invited  by  the  Reader  of  the  Inner  Temple 
to  his  feast  (9th  March  1G68-9),  the  gentlemen 
took  offence  at  the  sword  being  carried  up  within 
the  precincts,  and  would  not  suffer  him  to  proceed. 
He   betook   himself  to    Mr    Philippe's  chamber  and 

1  Hint.  MSS.  Com.,  xi.  (v.)  pp.  143-4. 


DECADENCE  251 

there  was  obliti^ed  to  stay  all  day.  The  Recorder  and 
sheriffs  related  this  dispute  to  the  King  in  Council, 
who  sent  a  clerk  in  his  name  to  command  them  to 
forbear  further  disorder,  but  that  little  prevailed.  At 
last  the  Lord  Chamberlain  was  sent  to  find  some 
expedient  for  the  matter.  The  issue  was  that  the 
Lord  Mayor  returned  without  any  dinner  about  seven 
at  night  with  his  sword  up,  but  by  a  back  way  through 
Ram  Alley."'  This  story  is  quaint  enough,  but  not 
only  is  it  the  continuance  in  Jacobean  London  of 
city  rights  fought  for  in  earlier  times,  but  it  was  a 
struggle  shared  in  by  the  whole  city.  The  city,  we 
are  told  in  the  same  correspondence,  "  so  much 
resents  the  late  affront  done  to  the  Lord  Mayor 
that  I  hear  there  is  a  guard  of  three  hundred  men 
placed  about  the  Temple  to  secure  it  from  the  rage 
of  the  apprentices,  who  otherwise,  it  is  thought, 
would  pull  it  down  to  the  ground."  The  city's 
rights  were  still  of  moment  to  the  citizens,  all 
unconscious  as  they  were  that  this  right  had  pro- 
bably descended  from  Roman  times." 

We  now  come  to  the  problem  presented  by  the 
expansion  of  London,  which  under  the  Tudors  played 
so  important  a  part  in  London  history.  Under  the 
Stuarts  it  assumed  a  still  more  important  position. 
It  reveals  the  same  two  significant  phases,  the  crippling 

^   Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  xii.  (vii.)  pp.  62,  63. 

-  The  interesting  and  archaic  custom  of  the  sword  being 
carried  jjoint  upwards  is  discussed  in  my  Index  of  Municipal  Offices, 
pp.  17-I9j  Hiid  I  have  not  mucli  to  alter  in  the  opinions  there 
expressed. 


252  LONDON 

of  city  jurisdiction  within  the  city  area  and  the  entire 
want  of  jurisdiction  outside  the  city. 

The  beginning  of  Stuart  action  was  undoubtedly 
for  good.  King  James  was  possessed  of  some  sort  of 
an  ideal.  In  a  proclamation  issued  by  James  I.  in 
1604  he  forbade  the  erection  of  any  new  house  in 
the  city  of  London,  or  within  one  mile  thereof, 
"  except  all  the  utter  wals  and  windowes  thereof,  and 
the  forefront  of  the  same,  be  wholly  made  of  bricke, 
or  bricke  and  stone."  Also  the  forefront  of  the  new 
building  was  to  be  of  a  prescribed  uniform  "  order 
and  forme,"  according  to  the  street  in  which  it  was 
situated.  Similar  proclamations  were  issued  in  1607 
and  1608.  None  of  them,  however,  appears  to  have 
had  much  effect,  and  in  1615,  irritated  at  the  little 
success  which  had  attended  his  efforts,  the  king 
issued  a  further  proclamation,  in  which  he  announced 
his  intention,  "  now  and  hereafter,  to  leave  words,  and 
to  act  and  execute  Our  Princely  ordinances  on  that 
behalfe,  and  not  to  make  discourse  or  recitall  of 
them."  The  provisions  of  the  former  proclamations 
were  confirmed,  and  the  hope  was  expressed  that 
"  as  it  was  said  by  the  first  emperor  of  Rome,  that  he 
had  found  the  city  of  Rome  of  bricke,  and  left  it  of 
marble,  so  that  Wee,  whom  God  hath  honoured  to 
be  the  first  king  of  Great  Britaine,  mought  bee  able 
to  say  in  some  proportion,  that  Wee  had  found  Our 
citie  and  suburbs  of  London  of  stickes,  and  left  them 
of  bricke,  being  a  materiall  farre  more  durable,  safe 
from    fire,    beautifull   and    magnificent."     These   are 


DECADENCE  253 

brave  words,  and  they  indicate  brave  hopes — hopes 
that  in  Stuart  hands  were  never  encouraged  to 
fruition. 

Five  years  later  a  proclamation  of  a  much  more 
comprehensive  character  was  issued.  The  district 
affected  was  extended  to  live  miles  from  the  city 
gates.  Not  only  was  the  requirement  to  build  in 
brick  or  stone  repeated,  but  minute  regulations  were 
laid  down  as  to  number  and  height  of  storeys,  build- 
ing materials,  thickness  of  walls,  size  of  windows,  and 
a  number  of  other  details,  and  it  was  provided  that 
all  walls  should  be  built  straight  upwards  without 
"jutties,  or  jutting  or  cant  windowes."  Edicts  of 
similar  purport,  but  only  applying  to  a  distance  of 
three  miles  from  the  city  gates  or  the  Palace  of 
Westminster,  were  issued  by  Charles  I.  in  1625  and 
1630.  In  1656  the  question  was  for  the  first  time 
dealt  with  by  the  legislature,  the  Commonwealth 
Parliament  in  that  year  including  in  their  Act  "  for 
the  preventing  of  the  multiplicity  of  buildings  in  and 
about  the  suburbs  of  London,  and  within  ten  miles 
thereof,"  provisions  dealing  with  the  use  of  stone  and 
brick,  and  the  building  of  walls  straight  up. 

The  indications  which  these  proclamations  supply 
were  not  carried  out  in  any  one  aspect.  A  passage 
in  one  of  the  Chamberlain  letters  a  few  months 
before  the  death  of  Queen  Elizabeth  (27th  June 
1602)  exhibits  an  extraordinary  policy  in  operation. 
"  The  Council  have  lately  spied  a  great  inconveni- 
ence of  the  increase  of  housing  within  and  without 


254  LONDON 

London,  by  building  over  stables,  in  gardens,  and 
other  odd  corners,  where  upon  they  have  taken  order 
to  have  them  pulled  down ;  and  this  week  they 
have  begun  almost  in  every  parish  to  light  on  the 
inhabitants,  here  and  there  one,  which,  God  knows,  is 
far  from  removing  the  mischief."  ^ 

Again,  in  1615,  when,  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of 
recruiting  the  royal  exchequer,  these  arbitrary  pro- 
clamations were  rigorously  put  in  force,  the  same 
writer  says :  "  But  the  inquiry  after  New  Buildings 
within  seven  miles  of  the  town,  since  the  King's 
coming-in,  goes  on  amain,  and  last  week  the  whole 
Council,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  brought 
down  a  Commission,  and  sat  at  Guildhall  about  it. 
If  they  should  proceed  with  rigour  and  extremity, 
they  might  raise  a  great  mass  of  money,  as  is  thought, 
but  it  would  cause  much  murmur  and  complaint." 
And  that  it  was  persevered  in  appears  from  another 
passage  in  the  following  month,  when  Chamberlain 
writes  :  "  All  manner  of  projects  are  still  on  foot,  but 
the  New  Buildings  bring  in  most  profit.'" 

An  historian  of  that  reign,  Arthur  Wilson,^  describes 
the  consequences  of  this  policy  to  have  been  that 
"  many  men  laid  out  their  whole  estates  upon  little 
hovels ;  or,  not  well  heeding  the  Proclamation,  and 
building  fair  houses  upon  new  foundations,  though  it 
were  but  two  yards  from  the  old,  became  trespassers, 

^   Nifhol's  Progresses,  etc.,  of  Queen  Klizaheth,  vol.  iii.  j).  578. 

2  Nichol's  Progresses,  etc.,  of  King  James  I.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  92,  93. 

3  Hist,  of  Great  Britain,  l6.'53,  fol. 


DECADENCE 


'Zryo 


and  were  obliged  either  to  purchase  their  houses  at  a 
dear  rate  or  pull  them  down— both  ways  tending  to 
their  ruin." 

The  shame  of  this  state  of  things  is  lasting.  It  is 
too  great  for  remedy,  and  by  it  the  city  was  deprived 
of  a  chance  to  be  greater  than  it  had  ever  been.     A 


Sir  Christopher  Wren's  plan  for  rebuilding  London  after  the  fire  in  1666. 

still  greater  chance  came  later,  and  the  city  did  not 
rise  to  it.  The  calamity  of  the  great  fire  might  have 
been  turned  to  the  benefit  of  London  during  succeed- 
ing ages,  for  Sir  Christopher  Wren  was  at  hand  to 
direct  public  thought  towards  a  great  ideal.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  the  king  supported  him.  An  order 
of  the  king  in  Council  was  issued  on  2 1st  September 
16C6  concerning  the  form  of  the  new  buildings,  which 
are  to  be  of  brick  and  stone,  with  a  quay  all  along 


256  LONDON 

the  riverside ;  ^  and  in  the  building  of  St  Paul's  a 
newsletter  of  10th  November  1672  relates  that  "  he 
caused  a  most  curious  model  to  be  made  by  his 
surveyor,  Dr  Wren,  which  he  has  been  pleased  to 
approve  and  order  to  be  done  according  to  it.  It  is 
rather  bigger  than  the  old  foundation,  and  will  be  an 
incomparable  piece  of  work."  ^  This,  fortunately,  was 
quite  true,  and  on  18th  May  1675  the  king  ordered 
the  building  "to  be  begun  out  of  hand,  and  that  they 
build  a  quire  first,  and  so  as  the  revenue  shall  come  in 
to  proceed  on  other  parts  according  to  the  model  now 
approved  on  by  him."  The  touch  of  definiteness  here 
is  a  really  great  act — the  building  is  to  be  begun  out 
of  hand,  and  we  possess  it  now,  one  of  the  architectural 
glories  of  the  country.  St  Paul's,  however,  was  the 
centre  of  a  new  London,  and  Wren  thought  to  make 
the  surroundings  equal  to  the  centre.  He  could  not 
make  headway  with  the  competition  for  sites  amidst 
the  charred  ruins  of  the  city.  In  1667  it  is  reported 
that  "  they  are  laying  foundations,  especially  in  the 
great  streets  from  Cornhill  to  Temple  Bar,  and  there 
was  great  contest  among  the  several  parishes  to 
preserve  their  own  churches,  to  whose  repairs  those 
which  are  to  be  pulled  down  must  contribute."^ 
The  king  would  not  give  up  amusing  himself  in  St 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  xii.  (vii.)  p.  42. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  97,  H9.  It  is  curious  to  see  Wren  building  St  Paul's 
Cathedral  and  at  the  same  time  "  disfurnishing  "  four  or  five  places 
erected  by  "  nonconformists  of  several  persuasions "  in  and  about 
the  city.     Ibid.,  p.  71. 

^  Ibid.,  (vii.)  p.  47. 


DECADENCE  257 

James's  Park  and  his  palace  of  Whitehall  for  one  more 
touch  of  definiteness.  His  amusement,  however,  has 
conferred  a  lasting  benefit  upon  London,  namely,  the 
acquisition  and  laying  out  of  the  Green  Park,  and 
there  is  again  the  touch  of  definite  action.  A  news- 
letter of  21st  May  1667  conveys  the  information  that 
"  His  Majesty  has  given  order  for  taking  several 
adjacent  fields  into  his  park  of  St  James's,  namely, 
from  the  Lord  Chancellor's  new  house  all  along 
Knightsbridge  highway  round  the  Physic  Garden, 
and  so  to  come  in  at  Whitehall  behind  Goring 
House."  ^ 

Wren's  town-planning  scheme  was  a  great  effort. 
It  remains  as  a  London  ideal — one  of  the  many 
London  ideals  to  which  London  has  not  responded. 
John  Evelyn,  too,  had  a  scheme ;  and  these  two 
Londoners  of  the  decadent  age  did  their  best  for  the 
city.  Wren  prefaces  his  description  of  the  plan  he 
proposed  by  saying  that  "  some  intelligent  persons 
thought  it  highly  requisite  the  city  in  restoration 
should  rise  with  that  beauty  by  the  straightness  and 
regularity  of  buildings  and  convenience  for  commerce, 
by  the  well  disposing  of  streets  and  public  places  and 
the  opening  of  wharfes,  etc.,  which  the  excellent 
situation,  wealth,  and  grandeur  of  the  metropolis  of 
England  did  justly  deserve  ;  in  respect  also  of  the 
rank  she  bore  with  all  other  trading  cities  of  the 
world,  of  which,  tho'  she  was  before  one  of  the  richest 
in  estate   and   dowry,  yet   unquestionably   the   least 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  xii.  (vii.)  p.  48. 

17 


258 


LONDON 


beautiful."  ^  Evelyn  entitled  his  plan,  "  I^ondon  re- 
stored not  to  its  pristine,  but  to  a  far  greater  beauty, 
commodiousness,  and  magnificence.'"'^  His  plan  was 
to  use  the  rubbish  resulting  from  the  fire  "  to  fill  up, 
or  at  least  to  give  a  partial  level  to,  some  of  the 
deepest  vallies,  holes,    and    more   sudden   declivities 


John  Evelyn's  plan  for  rebuilding  London  after  the  fire  in  1666. 

within  the  city,  for  instance,  that  from  the  Fleet  to 
Ludgate." 

It  was  all,  however,  fruitless.  Pepys  exactly  de- 
scribes the  situation  on  24th  February  1667.  "  By 
and  by  comes  Sir  Robert  Viner  and  my  Lord  Mayor 
to  ask  the  King's  directions  about  measuring  out  the 
streets  according  to  the  new  Act  for  building  of  the 

1  Wren,  Parejitalia,  part  ii.  sect.  ii.  pp.  267-271.  See  Appendix 
VIII. 

-  Evelyn's  plan  is  to  be  found  in  Maitland's  Hist,  of  London, 
1772,  vol.  i.  p.  447. 


DECADENCE  259 

City,  wherein  the  King  is  to  be  pleased.  But  he 
says  that  the  way  proposed  in  Parliament  by  Colonel 
Birch  would  have  been  the  best,  to  have  chosen 
some  persons  in  trust  and  sold  the  whole  ground, 
and  let  it  be  sold  again  by  them  with  preference 
to  the  old  owner,  which  would  have  certainly  caused 
the  city  to  be  built  where  these  trustees  pleased  ; 
whereas  now  great  differences  will  be,  and  the  streets 
built  by  fits  and  not  entire  till  all  differences  be 
decided.  This,  as  he  tells  it,  I  think  would  have 
been  the  best  way."  "  Streets  built  by  fits  and  not 
entire  "  are  bitter  words  from  the  diary  of  the  great 
official  of  King  Charles'  day.  They  are  applicable  to 
the  present-day  London,  and  are  in  direct  contrast  to 
the  spirit  of  the  Act  of  1667.  This  Act  is  literature 
as  well  as  statute,  and  some  of  its  clauses  are 
valuable  contributions  towards  the  understanding  of 
Stuart  London.     The  preamble  is  as  follows : — 

"  Forasmuch  as  the  City  of  London,  being  the 
Imperial  seat  of  his  Majesty's  Kingdoms,  and  re- 
nowned for  trade  and  Commerce  throughout  the 
A^^orld ;  by  reason  of  a  most  dreadful  Fire  lately 
happening  therein,  was  for  the  most  part  thereof 
burnt  down  and  destroyed  within  the  Compass  of 
a  few  Days,  and  now  lies  buried  in  its  own  Ruins : 
For  the  speedy  Restauration  whereof,  and  for  the 
better  Regulation,  Uniformity,  and  Gracefulness  of 
such  new  Buildings  as  shall  be  erected  for  Habita- 
tions in  order  thereunto  ;  and  to  the  End  tliat  great 
and    outrageous     Fires    (through    the     Blessing    of 


260  LONDON 

Almighty  God),  so  far  forth  as  human  Providence 
(with  submission  to  the  Divine  Pleasure)  can  foresee, 
may  be  reasonably  prevented  or  obviated  for  the 
Time  to  come,  both  by  the  Matter  and  Form  of 
such  Building :  And  further,  to  the  Intent  that  all 
Encouragement  and  Expedition  may  be  given  unto, 
and  all  Impediments  and  Obstructions  that  may 
retard  or  protract  the  Undertaking  or  carrying  on 
a  Work  so  necessary,  and  of  so  great  Honour  and 
Importance  to  his  JNIajesty  and  this  Kingdom,  and 
to  the  rest  of  his  Majesty's  Kingdoms  and  Dominions, 
may  be  removed." 

This  is  followed  by  some  of  the  most  important 
clauses  ever  contained  in  an  Act  of  Parliament  for 
local  purposes. 

"  V.  And,  to  the  End  that  all  Builders  may  the 
better  know  how  to  provide  and  fit  their  Materials 
for  their  several  Buildings  ;  be  it  enacted.  That  there 
shall  be  only  Four  Sorts  of  Buildings,  and  no  more ; 
and  that  all  Manner  of  Houses  so  to  be  erected  shall 
be  one  of  these  Four  Sorts  of  Buildings,  and  no 
other ;  (that  is  to  say).  The  first  and  least  Sort  of 
Houses  fronting  By-lanes ;  the  Second  Sort  of 
Houses  fronting  Streets  and  Lanes  of  Note ;  the 
Third  Sort  of  Houses  fronting  high  and  principal 
Streets ;  the  Fourth  and  largest  Sort  of  JNIansion- 
houses  for  Citizens,  or  other  Persons  of  extraordinary 
Quality,  not  fronting  either  of  the  three  former 
Ways :  And  the  Roofs  of  each  of  the  said  First 
Three  Sorts  of  Houses  respectively  shall  be  uniform." 


DECADENCE  2r,l 

"  VI.  And  for  avoiding  any  Uncertainty  to  the 
Builders  or  others  herein,  be  it  further  enacted,  That 
the  Lord  Mayor,  Aldermen,  and  Common  Council 
of  the  said  City  for  the  Time  being  shall  on  or  before 
the  First  Day  of  April  next  ensuing,  declare  which 
and  how  many  shall  hereafter  be  accounted  and 
taken  to  be  By-lanes,  which  and  how  many  shall 
hereafter  be  deemed  Streets  or  Lanes  of  Note,  and 
high  and  principal  Streets,  by  Act  of  Common 
Council  to  be  passed  for  that  Purpose.  ..." 


"  XV.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  if  any 
Person  or  Persons,  Bodies  Politick  or  Corporate, 
being  seised,  possessed,  or  interested,  of  or  in  any 
Ground  which  was  formerly  builded  upon,  and  the 
Houses  thereupon  being  now  burned  or  pulled  down 
at  the  Time  of  the  late  Fire,  shall  not  within  Three 
Years  next  ensuing  build  up  the  same ;  That  then 
the  Mayor,  Aldermen,  and  Common  Council  of  the 
City  of  London,  by  Act  of  Common  Council,  may 
cause  Proclamation  to  be  publickly  made  between 
the  Hours  of  Twelve  and  Two  of  the  Clock  in  the 
Afternoon,  as  well  at  or  upon  the  said  Ground,  as 
also  at  or  upon  the  publick  Exchange  of  the  said 
City,  thereby  to  give  Notice  to  all  Persons  that  shall 
be  or  may  be  therein  concerned,  to  cause  the  same 
to  be  rebuilded,  according  to  the  Direction  of  this 
present  Act,  within  the  Space  of  Nine  months  then 
next  following :    And  in    Case  the   Owners  thereof, 


262  LONDON 

or  other  Person  or  Persons  having  Interest  therein, 
shall  refuse  or  neglect  to  rebuild  the  same,  in  Manner 
and   within  such    Time    as    aforesaid,  That   then  in 
such   Case  the  said  Mayor  and  Court  of  Aldermen 
of  the  said  City  are  hereby  authorised  to  issue  out 
Warrants  to  the   Sheriffs  of  I^ondon  for  the  Time 
being,  requiring  them  to  impanel  and  return  before 
them  a  Jury  of  good  and   lawful   Men  of  the  said 
City ;  which  the  said  Sheriffs  are  hereby  authorised 
and  required  to  do  accordingly ;  which  Jury  so  re- 
turned  shall,  upon  their  Oaths,  to  be  administered 
to  them  by  the  said  Mayor  and  Court  of  Aldermen 
(who  are  likewise  hereby  authorised  to  administer  the 
same),   enquire,   estimate,   and   assess,   the  true   and 
just  Value  of  such  void  Ground,  according  to  their 
Judgements :  And  that  from  and  after  such  Inquiry 
and  Valuation  thereof  made  as  aforesaid,  by  Inquest 
of  the  said  Jury,  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  to  and 
for  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen,  and  Common  Council 
of  the  said  City,  to  make  Sale  of  the  Fee  or  Inherit- 
ance thereof,  by  Conveyance  under  their  Common 
Seal,  to  any  Person  or   Persons  that  will  purchase 
the  same,  at  such  Price  at  which  the  same  shall  have 
been  so  as    aforesaid  estimated   and   valued  by  the 
said  Jury ;  and  the  JNIonies  thereupon  to  be  received 
of  the    Purchasers   thereof   shall    be   paid   into   the 
Chamber  of  London,  and  from  thence  to  be  issued 
out  and  paid  by  the  Chamberlain  of  liOndon  for  the 
Time  being,  unto  such  Persons  who  shall  have  any 
Estate  or  Interest  into  or  out  of  the  same,  according 


DECADENCE  203 

to  his  or  their  respective  Estate  or  Estates,  Title  or 
Interest :  AVhich  sale  so  made  and  inrolled  of 
Record,  accord in<^  to  the  Custom  or  Usage  of  the 
said  City  for  inrollment  of  Bargains  and  Sales,  shall 
be  final  and  conclusive  of  all  other  Persons  whatso- 
ever, and  shall  bar  them,  their  Heirs  and  Assigns, 
to  claim  any  Estate,  Right,  Title,  or  Interest  of,  in, 
or  out  of  the  Grounds  so  sold,  precedent  to  the  said 
Sale ;  and  the  Purchaser  or  Purchasers  thereof,  his 
and  their  Heirs  and  Assigns,  shall  and  may,  by 
Virtue  of  this  Act,  have,  hold,  and  enjoy  the  same 
against  all  Persons  claiming  any  Estate,  Right,  Title, 
or  Interest  into  or  out  of  the  same,  his  and  their 
Heirs,  Executors,  Administrators,  and  Assigns,  freed 
and  discharged  of  and  from  all  Incumbrances  in 
Estate,  Title,  Charge,  or  otherwise,  precedent  to  the 
said  Sale." 


"  XXIII.  And  whereas  many  antient  Streets  and 
Passages  within  the  said  City  and  Liberties  thereof, 
and  amongst  others  those  which  are  hereafter  men- 
tioned, were  narrow  and  incommodious  for  Carriages 
and  Passengers,  and  prejudicial  to  the  Trade  and 
Health  of  the  Inhabitants,  and  are  necessary  to  be 
inlarged  as  well  for  the  Convenience  as  Ornament  of 
the  City,  be  it  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid. 
That  the  JNIayor,  Aldermen,  and  Commons  of  the 
said  City  for  the  Time  being,  in  Common  Council 
assembled,  shall  and  may,  and  are  hereby  impowered 


264  LONDON 

and  required  to  enlarge  all  and  every  the  Streets  and 
Places  hereafter  mentioned,  where  and  in  such  Manner 
as  there  shall  be  Cause,  by  and  with  the  Approbation 
of  His  Majesty,  and  not  otherwise  ;  that  is  to  say,  the 
Street  called  Fleet  Street.  ..." 


"  XXV.  And  to  the  End  that  reasonable  Satisfac- 
tion may  be  given  for  all  such  Ground  as  shall  be 
taken  and  employed  for  the  Uses  aforesaid  ;  the 
Mayor,  Aldermen,  and  Common  Council  shall  and 
may  treat  and  agree  with  the  Owners  and  others 
interested  therein  ;  And  if  there  shall  be  any  Persons, 
Bodies  Corporate  or  Collegiate,  that  shall  wilfully 
refuse  to  treat  and  agree,  as  aforesaid,  or  through  any 
Disability  by  Nonage,  Coverture,  or  especial  Entail, 
or  other  Impediment,  cannot ;  that  in  such  Cases 
the  said  Lord  Mayor  and  Court  of  Aldermen  are 
hereby  authorised,  by  virtue  of  this  Act,  to  issue  out 
a  Warrant  or  Warrants  to  the  Sheriffs  of  London, 
who  are  hereby  required  accordingly  to  impanel  and 
return  a  Jury  before  the  said  Lord  Mayor  and  Court 
of  Aldermen :  Which  Jury,  upon  their  Oaths  to  be 
administered  by  the  said  Lord  Mayor  and  Court  of 
Aldermen,  are  to  inquire  and  assess  such  Damage 
and  Recompence  as  they  shall  judge  fit  to  be  awarded 
to  the  Owners,  and  others  interested,  according  to 
their  several  and  respective  Interests  and  Estates  of 
and  in  any  such  Houses  or  Ground,  or  any  Part 
thereof,  for  their  respective  Interests  and  Estates  in 


DECADENCE  205 

the  same,  as  by  the  said  Lord  Mayor,  Aldermen,  and 
Commons,  in  Common  Council  assembled,  shall  be 
adjudged  fit  to  be  converted  for  the  Purposes  afore- 
said :  and  such  Verdict  of  the  Jury,  and  Judgement 
of  the  said  Lord  Mayor  and  Court  of  Aldermen  there- 
upon, and  the  Payment  of  the  Sum  or  Sums  of  Money 
so  awarded  or  adjudged  to  the  Owners,  and  others 
having  Estate  or  Interest,  or  Tender  and  Refusal 
thereof,  shall  be  binding  to  all  Intents  and  Purposes 
against  the  said  Parties,  their  Heirs,  Executors, 
Administrators,  and  Assigns,  and  others  claiming  any 
Title  or  Interest  in  the  said  Houses  or  Ground,  and 
shall  be  a  full  authority  for  the  said  Lord  Mayor, 
Aldermen,  and  Commons,  to  cause  the  same  to  be 
converted  and  used  for  the  Purposes  aforesaid." 

"  XXVI.  And  forasmuch  as  the  Houses  now  re- 
maining, and  to  be  rebuilt,  will  receive  more  or  less 
Advantage  in  the  Value  of  the  Rents,  by  the  Liberty 
of  Air,  and  free  Recourse  for  Trade,  and  other  Con- 
veniences by  such  Regulation  and  Inlargement ;  it 
is  also  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid,  That  in 
case  of  Refusal  or  Incapacity,  as  aforesaid,  of  the 
Owners,  or  others  interested  of  or  in  the  said  Houses, 
to  agree  and  compound  with  the  said  Lord  JNIayor, 
Aldermen,  and  Commons  for  the  same,  thereupon  a 
Jury  shall  and  may  be  impanneled  in  INIanner  and 
Form  aforesaid,  to  judge  and  assess  upon  the  Owners, 
and  others  interested  of  and  in  such  Houses,  such 
competent  Sum  and  Sums  of  Money  with  respect 
to  their  several  Interests,  in    Consideration  of  such 


266  LONDON 

Improvement  and  Melioration,  as  in  Reason  and 
good  Conscience  they  shall  think  fit :  And  all  Sums 
of  Money  that  shall  be  so  assessed  and  raised  as 
aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  to  the  Chamberlain  of  the  City 
of  London  for  the  Time  being,  who  is  hereby  enabled 
from  Time  to  Time  to  receive  and  recover  the  same 
by  Action  at  Law,  and  whose  receipt  shall  be  a  good 
Discharge  to  such  Owners,  or  others  interested  ;  and 
who  is  hereby  appointed  to  receive  and  pay,  and  be 
accountable  for  the  same  according  to  such  Directions 
as  shall  from  Time  to  Time  be  given  him  by  the  said 
Lord  Mayor,  Aldermen,  and  Commons :  and  the 
Money  so  raised  shall  be  wholly  imployed  towards 
Payment  and  Satisfaction  of  such  Houses  and 
Grounds  as  shall  be  converted  into  Streets,  Passages, 
Markets,  and  other  publick  Places  aforesaid :  And 
such  Satisfaction  so  given,  or  tendered  and  refused, 
as  aforesaid,  shall  divest  the  Propriety,  Estate,  and 
Interest  of  the  respective  Owners,  and  others  having 
Interest  of  and  in  such  Parcels  of  Ground  so  to  be 
taken  and  imployed  for  the  Uses  aforesaid,  by  virtue 
of  this  Act:  Which  shall  be  and  are  hereby  actually 
settled  and  invested  in  the  said  Lord  INIayor,  Common- 
alty, and  Citizens  of  the  City  of  London,  and  their 
Successors,  in  like  Manner  as  other  the  common 
Streets  and  Highways  within  the  said  City." 

This  is  a  drastic  measure.  Owners  cannot  do  as 
they  like,  and  they  must  not  delay  the  development 
of  the  city.  It  is  well  to  know  that  such  a  measure 
could  be  obtained  from  a  Stuart  monarch  and  a  Stuart 


DECADENCE  207 

Parliament  when  necessity  demanded,  and  it  stands 
as  a  lesson  to  later  ages.  It  is  well  to  know  also  that 
Parliament  contained  a  member  whose  scheme  was 
more  drastic  and  more  comprehensive.  London  at 
that  moment,  in  its  ruined  condition,  was  one  great 
estate,  and  the  scheme  of  Colonel  Birch  submitted  to 
Parliament  sought  to  have  it  rebuilt  on  this  principle. 
If  Parliament  had  only  listened,  owners  and  city 
would  have  benefited  and  the  capital  city  would  have 
been  a  great  city. 

The  city  authorities  benefited  their  own  property 
even  if  they  neglected  the  city.  This  we  learn  from 
an  interesting  document  preserved  by  the  Dean  and 
Chapter  of  the  Cathedral.  It  is  the  "demise  by 
the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  St  Paul's  to  the  Mayor, 
Commonalty,  and  Citizens  of  I^ondon,  of  all  that  parte 
and  soe  much  of  the  ground  and  soile  of  the  foundacon 
of  the  old  maine  wall  heretofore  encompassing  the 
churchyard  of  the  said  cathedral  church  of  St  Paul, 
I^ondon,  as  is  hereinafter  menconed,  viz.,  from  the 
gateway  or  passage  leading  out  of  the  said  church- 
yard into  Cheapside  westward  unto  Cannon  Alley, 
between  the  several  grounds  and  tenements  belonging 
to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London  and  the  said  Deane 
and  Chapter  and  others  fronting  south  upon  the  said 
churchyard  and  the  ground  tenements  of  the  said 
Mayor  and  Cominalty  and  Cittizens,  fronting  north 
upon  Paternoster  Rowe  two  hundred  and  seaventy 
foote  of  assize  or  thereabouts  in  length,  and  in  breadth 
(the  thicknesse  of  the    said    wall   in    the  foundacon 


268  LONDON 

being)  fowre  foote  of  assize  or  thereabouts,  and  from 
Cannon  Alley  westward  to  St  Paul's  Alley  more  one 
hundred  and  seaventy  foote  in  length,  of  the  same 
breadth,  the  whole  containing  on  that  side  one 
thousand  seaven  hundred  and  three  score  superficiall 
feete  of  assize  be  the  same  more  or  less.  And  also 
from  the  gateway  or  passage  late  called  St  Augustin's 
Gate,  leading  out  of  the  said  church  yard  into  Watling 
Streete,  northward  to  the  house  in  the  Old  Chaunge 
in  the  occupacon  of  John  Cobb  or  of  his  assignes  or 
undertenants,  in  length  forty  foote  of  assize  and  two 
foote  broad,  and  from  another  house  in  the  old 
Chaunge  adjoining  to  Cobb's  on  the  north  side  and 
now  in  the  occupacon  of  John  Brattle,  gentleman,  or 
of  his  assignes  or  undertenants,  northward  to  the 
freehold  of  Mr  Myles  Martyn,  heretofore  called  Jesus 
Steeple,  betweene  the  ground  and  tenements  belong- 
ing to  the  said  Mayor,  Cominalty,  and  Cittizens,  front- 
ing east  upon  the  old  Chaunge  and  the  schoole  and 
schoolehouse  and  other  tenements  fronting  west  upon 
the  said  churchyard,  in  length  one  hundred  fowrescore 
and  two  feete  of  assize  and  in  breadth  two  feete,  the 
whole  contayning  on  that  side  fowre  hundred  forty 
and  fowre  superficiall  feete  of  assize  be  the  same 
more  or  less,  which  ground  and  soyle  of  the  said  wall 
hereby  demised,  being  in  the  whole  two  thousand  two 
hundred  a  fowre  foote  of  assize  or  thereabouts,  is 
intended  for  the  enlargement  or  other  accomodacon 
of  the  severall  mesuages,  houses,  and  tenements  of 
the  said  JNIayor,  Cominalty,  and  Cittizens,  in  the  old 


DECADENCE  269 

Chaunge  and  in  Paternoster  Rowe  aforesaid,  which  were 
burnt  downe  by  the  late  dreadfull  fire  in  London."  ^ 

This  interesting  document  is  of  great  moment,  his- 
torically and  topographically.  We  not  only  gather 
from  it  that  the  city  did  not  lend  itself  to  an  en- 
larged planning  of  London,  but  we  know  from  it 
how  the  walls  enclosing  St  Paul's  in  mediaeval  days 
were  dealt  with  after  the  fire.  We  were  interested 
in  the  walls  enclosing  St  Paul's  in  a  former  chapter, 
and  we  could  from  this  document  construct  the  plan 
of  them  on  the  ground  as  it  exists  to-day. 

The  city  benefited  very  little  by  the  great  Act  of 
Parliament,  and  outer  London  not  at  all.  There  the 
old  story  went  on.  People  in  their  own  interests 
were  allowed  to  develop  new  building  schemes  in  a 
most  unexpected  manner,  and  there  are  many  con- 
temporary documents  to  prove  this.  Thus  in  a  peti- 
tion of  William  Lord  Monson,  Peter  de  la  Motte, 
and  four  other  inhabitants  of  Covent  Garden,  to  the 
Lords  of  the  Privy  Council  against  the  proposal  of 
one  Brett,  a  chandler,  to  build  twelve  tenements 
between  Covent  Garden  and  Drury  Lane,  it  is  con- 
tended that  these  tenements,  being  in  a  blind  and 
obscure  place,  will  be  fit  only  for  poor  and  mean 
people,  who  will  cause  them  much  inconvenience  ;  and 
they  protest  against  "  such  pestering  of  multitudes  of 
families  and  poore  people  together  in  such  by-places 

^  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  ix.  pp.  58-59.  The  demise  is  for  forty  years 
at  a  yearly  rent  of  £l4,  4*.  Od.,  and  is  dated  6th  July  l670.  This 
should  be  compared  with  the  agreement  of  1282,  ante,  p.  147. 


270  LONDON 

to  suffocate  each  other,"  urging  that  "  it  wilbe  an 
evill  example  for  all  such  other  (more  affected  to 
their  own  private  lucre  than  the  publique  good)  to 
build  and  erect  like  tenements  in  every  piece  of  ground 
or  garden  plott  nere  the  said  Covent  Garden."  These 
are  admirable  sentiments  if  they  represent  the  true 
state  of  things,  and  in  any  case  they  indicate  a  view 
of  the  expansion  of  London  which  might  have  pro- 
duced good  results  if  it  had  been  allowed  to  have  its 
proper  weight  in  the  council.^ 

There  is,  however,  another  side  to  the  picture,  and 
a  record  of  the  doings  of  the  commissioners  of  sewers 
will  give  some  idea  of  the  sanitary  condition  of  the 
city.  In  1685-6,  27th  January,  it  is  reported  by  one 
of  the  commissioners  that  the  commissioners  "  first 
sat  at  Hicks  Hall  to  consider  Turnmill  Brook  sewer, 
stopped  by  much  filth  thrown  into  it.  They  next 
kept  sessions  in  Whitechapel,  where  they  considered 
the  sewer  coming  from  Spitalfields,  which  runs  almost 
four  miles  before  it  gets  into  the  Thames,  through 
Stepney  town  and  close  to  the  churchway  which  leads 
to  Stepney  church,  and  almost  all  the  way  open,  and 
brings  down  a  very  noisome  water,  the  Walloons  and 
strangers  there  living  much  upon  cabbage  and  roots, 
to  the  great  offence  of  the  inhabitants  as  to  health 
and  other  ways."^ 

In   the   attempted    rebuilding   of   the    city   under 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  xi.  (vii.)  p.  290.  The  document  is  undated, 
but  it  is  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

2  Ibid.,  xi.  (v.)  p.  129. 


DECADENCE  271 

James  I.  the  city  corporation  is  not  allowed  to  be 
concerned.  It  was  all  His  Majesty  the  King,  the 
"  Wee "  of  the  Stuart  kingship.  It  was  the  king's 
council  who  attempted  to  recruit  the  royal  exchequer 
from  the  new  buildings  of  London.  It  was  the  king 
who  began  the  new  St  Paul's  "out  of  hand."  It  was 
Parliament  who  settled  the  lines  upon  which  rebuilding 
after  the  fire  was  to  take  place.  It  was  the  common 
council  of  the  city  who  were  to  carry  out  the  wishes 
of  Parliament.  It  was  a  sewerage  commission  that 
tried  to  stem  the  difficulties  of  a  polluted  city.  There 
is  no  common  policy  in  all  this  activity  and  inactivity, 
and  one  begins  to  wonder  what  the  ancient  city,  with 
all  its  ancient  powers  untouched,  was  doing.  One 
thing  is  quite  clear.  The  alternate  action  and  inaction 
of  the  king  and  the  king's  court  were  quite  disastrous 
to  the  ancient  controlling  powers  of  the  city,  which, 
even  in  connection  with  its  most  important  functions 
as  the  home  of  city  trade  organisation,  was  beginning 
to  feel  the  effect  of  unregulated  expansion. 

We  take  one  example,  a  picturesque  and  a  drastic 
case.  A  petition  was  addressed  to  Sir  Martin  Lumley 
Knight,  lord  mayor  in  1623-4,  by  "  divers  young 
men  free  of  the  Goldsmiths'  company,  inhabitants  of 
the  Strand,  stating  that  being  established  in  an  open 
and  convenient  place  of  ancient  custom  for  Goldsmiths, 
and  in  the  high  street  between  the  Court  and  the 
city,  yet  tendering  their  willing  obedience  to  perform 
his  Majesty's  desire  for  the  replenishing  of  the  Gold- 
smiths Rows  in  Cheapside,  and  to  express  their  love 


272  LONDON 

to  the  city  and  the  company  of  which  they  were 
members,  they  had  informed  the  wardens  of  their 
company,  and  they  now  intimated  to  his  Lordship 
their  wilHngness  to  undergo  the  losses,  which  were 
Hkely  to  be  great,  and  remove  to  Cheapside,  if  some 
steps  were  taken  that  they  might  have  the  shops  and 
houses  of  the  Goldsmiths  Rents  now  shut  up  or  in- 
habited by  others  of  meaner  trades  at  the  rates  they 
were  given  to  the  company  for  the  advancement  of 
young  men  of  the  same."^  This  is  the  cry  from  the 
city  to  the  expanding  area  beyond.  Goldsmiths  Row 
stood  opposite  the  Cross  in  Cheapside,  on  the  south 
side  of  the  street.  It  was  a  superb  pile  of  dwellings, 
extending  from  the  west  to  Bread  Street,  and  was 
erected  in  1491.  Stow  describes  it  as  "the  most 
beautiful  Frame  of  fayre  houses  and  shoppes  that 
bee  within  the  Walles  of  London,  or  elsewhere  in 
England,  commonly  called  Goldsmithes  Rowe,  be- 
twixt Bredstreet  end  and  the  Crosse  in  Cheape,  but  is 
within  this  Bredstreete  warde ;  the  same  was  builded 
by  Thomas  Wood,  Goldsmith,  one  of  the  SherifFes  of 
liOndon,  in  the  yeare  1491.  It  contayneth  in  number 
tenne  fayre  dwelling  houses,  and  foureteene  shoppes, 
all  in  one  Frame  uniformely  builded  foure  stories  high, 
bewtified  towardes  the  streete  with  the  Goldsmithes 
Armes,  and  the  likenes  of  Woodmen  in  memory  of 
his  name,  riding  on  monstrous  Beasts :  all  which  is 
cast  in   Lead,  richly   painted  over,   and  gilt."^     To 

^  Rcmemhrancia,  p,  106. 

-  Stow,  Survey  (edit.  Kingsford),  vol.  i.  p.  345. 


DECADENCE  273 

leave  a  place  such  as  this  shut  up  is  to  express  in 
practical  terms  the  change  the  city  was  undergoing 
by  expansion.  The  king  had  to  intervene.  The 
governance  of  the  trade  gild  was  not  strong  enough. 
The  "  high  street  between  the  Court  and  the  city " 
was  the  dominant  factor  in  the  case,  and  we  see  before 
us  the  insidious  tapping  of  the  ancient  city  founda- 
tions by  its  fatal  inattention  to  the  facts  which  were 
rapidly  developing  towards  the  building  up  of  a 
London  no  longer  to  be  contained  between  mediieval 
walls.  The  facts  from  one  example  can  be  repeated 
in  example  after  example  from  city  records,  and 
they  represent  the  dominant  note  of  Stuart  London. 
Nothing  was  sacred  to  the  Stuart  sovereign  except 
the  sovereignty,  and  it  is  curious  to  observe  how  the 
city  was  pitted  against  the  claims  of  outer  London 
instead  of  the  anomalies  being  healed  by  constitutional 
reforms.  Thus  Mr  Attorney  General  in  his  argument 
for  the  King  against  the  City,  dated  1st  May  1683, 
insisted,  inter  alia,  "  particularly  upon  the  great  op- 
pressions used  by  them  towards  His  Majesty's  subjects 
in  exacting  certain  taxes  from  all  that  came  to  their 
markets  which  ought  to  be  free,  that  by  the  same 
authority  that  they  exacted  £5000  per  annum  as  was 
computed  they  might  as  lawfully  exact  £10,000  a 
year."^  The  argument  was  a  good  one,  and  it  re- 
mains in  being  at  the  present  moment.  But  the 
consequent  action  on  the  argument  was  never  taken, 
and  the  one  great  opportunity  of  the  city  expanding 

^  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  Egmont  MSS.,  ii.  130. 

18 


274  LONDON 

to  its  proper  limits,  as  it  expanded  physically,  was  not 
only  lost  but  was  deliberately  set  aside.  The  result 
was  that  the  ancient  traditional  policy  remaining 
within  the  city  was  confronted  with  the  unformed 
policy  arising  without,  and  the  historian  from  this 
stage  onward   has  to  deal  with  the  dual  position. 

It  is  not  that  Stuart  I^ondon  possessed  no  features 
upon  which  new  conceptions  of  London  could  have 
been  founded.  Contemporary  literature  and  corre- 
spondence is  full  of  the  glories  of  Stuart  I^ondon. 
In  the  crown  Garland  of  Golden  Roses,  first  printed 
in  1612,  and  enlarged  in  1659,  there  are  verses  which 
give  us  a  picture  of  the  Thames  which  can  scarcely  be 
imagined  by  the  present  generation.  The  verses  occur 
only  in  the  second  edition,  but  it  is  fair  to  presume 
they  represented  the  state  of  things  in  the  earlier  period. 
They  occur  in  a  ballad  relating  to  the  "  lamentable 
fall  of  the  great  Duchess  of  Gloucester,  the  wife  of 
Duke  Humphrey,"  the  celebrated  Elinor  Cobham : 

"  Then  Haunted  I  in  Greenwich's  stately  towers, 
My  winter's  mansions  and  my  summer's  bowers ; 
Which  gallant  house  now  since  those  days  hath  been 
The  palace  brave  of  many  a  king  and  queen. 

The  silver  Thames,  that  sweetly  pleased  mine  eye, 
Procured  me  golden  thoughts  of  majesty; 
The  kind  contents  and  murmur  of  the  water 
Made  me  forget  the  woes  that  would  come  after."  ^ 


1  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  great  frosts  of  this  period.  In 
l608  "tlie  Thames  began  to  put  on  his  freeze  coat  and  hath  kept 
it  on  till  now,  this  latter  end  of  January,"  and  a  description  of  it 
is  printed  in  Arber's  English  Garner,  vol.  i.  pp.  77-99. 


DECADENCE  275 

In  The  Glory  of  England,  1618,  London  and  Paris 
were  thus  contrasted : 

"  If  I  beginne  not  at  first  with  too  sullen  or  concise 
a  question  ;  more  then  the  new  gallery  of  the  Louvre, 
and  the  suburbes  of  St  Germanes,  as  it  is  now  re- 
edified,  what  one  thing  is  worthy  obseruation  or 
wonder  within  Paris  ;  as  for  London,  but  that  you 
will  say  my  particular  loue  transporteth  mee,  it  hath 
many  specialities  of  note,  eminence,  and  amazement ; 
and  for  greatnes  it  selfe,  I  may  well  maintain,  that  if 
London  and  the  places  adioyning  were  circummunited 
in  such  an  orbicular  manner,  it  would  equall  Paris  for 
all  the  riuers  winding  about,  and  the  fine  bridges 
sorting  to  an  vniformity  of  streets  ;  and  as  wee  now 
behold  it,  the  crosse  of  London  is  euery  way  longer 
then  you  can  make  in  Paris,  or  any  citie  of  Europe : 
but  because  peraduenture  you  will  not  vnderstand 
what  I  meane  by  this  word  crosse,  it  shall  be  thus 
explained,  that  from  St  Georges  in  South warke  to 
Shoreditch  South  and  North ;  and  from  AVestminster 
to  St  Katherines  or  RatclifF,  West  and  East,  is  a 
crosse  of  streets,  meeting  at  Leaden- Hall,  euery 
way  longer,  with  broad  spaciousnesse,  handsome 
monuments,  illustrious  gates,  comely  buildings,  and 
admirable  markets,  then  any  you  can  make  in 
Paris,  or  euer  saw  in  other  city,  yea  Constantinople 
itselfe. 

"  In  London  the  Citizen  lines  in  the  best  order 
with  very  few  houses  of  Gentlemen  interposed,  and  in 
our  suburbs  the  Nobility  haue  so  many  and  stately 


276  LONDON 

dwellings,  that  one  side  of  the  riuer  may  compare 
with  the  Gran  Canale  of  Venice.  But  if  you  examine 
their  receipt  and  capacity,  Venice  and  all  the  cities  of 
Europe  must  submit  to  the  truth.  Nay,  in  London 
and  the  places  adioyning,  you  haue  a  thousand 
seuerall  houses  wherein  I  will  lodge  a  thousand 
seuerall  men  with  conueniency :  match  vs  now  if 
you  can. 

"  In  steed  of  ill  fauoured  woodden  bridges,  many 
times  endangered  with  tempests  and  frosts,  you  haue 
in  London  such  a  bridge  that,  without  ampliation  of 
particulars,  is  the  admirablest  monument,  and  firmest 
erected  structure  in  that  kinde  of  the  Vniuerse, 
whether  you  respect  the  foundation,  with  the  con- 
tinuall  charge  and  orderly  endeauours  to  keepe  the 
arches  substantiall,  or  examine  the  vpper  buildings, 
being  so  many,  and  so  beautifull  houses,  that  it  is 
a  pleasure  to  beholde  them,  and  a  fulnesse  of  con- 
tentment to  vnderstand  their  vses  conferred  vpon 
them." 

A  letter  from  John  Evelyn,  dated  14th  February 
1679-80,  exists  among  the  Ormonde  papers.  It  takes 
us  outside  the  city,  and  gives  an  interesting  account 
of  "  Chelsey  House."  He  regrets  that  his  lordship 
rejects  the  opportunity  "  for  the  purchasing  of  that 
sweet  place  at  Chelsey  upon  so  easy  terms.  ...  I 
have  formerly  acquainted  your  lordship  with  the 
particulars,  that  beside  a  magnificent  house  capable 
of  being  made  perfectly  modish,  the  offices,  gardens, 
and  other  accommodations  for  air,  water,  situation, 


DECADENCE  277 

vicinity  to  TiOndon,  benefit  of  the  river,  and  medio- 
crity of  price  are  nowhere  to  be  paralleled,  I  am  sure, 
about  this  town  or  any  that  I  know  in  England. 
There  are  with  it  to  be  added  as  many  orange  trees 
and  other  precious  greens  as  are  worth  £500  ;  the 
fruits  of  the  gardens  are  exquisite ;  there  is  a  snow 
house — in  a  word,  I  know  of  no  place  more  capable 
of  being  made  the  envy  of  the  noble  retreats  of  the 
greatest  persons  near  this  Court  and  city."  Then 
follow  "  particulars  of  Chelsey  House  :  There  belongs 
to  Chelsey  House  sixteen  acres  of  ground,  with  several 
large  gardens  and  courts  all  walled  in  and  planted 
with  the  choicest  fruits  that  could  be  collected  either 
from  abroad  or  in  England.  The  outhousing  is  very 
good,  ample,  and  commodious,  and  all  the  offices 
supplied  with  excellent  water.  .  .  .  For  this  particular, 
with  the  addition  of  all  orange  trees  and  other  greens, 
fruit,  and  flowers  of  all  kinds,  with  seats,  rollers, 
tables,  and  all  garden  utensils  ;  also  within  the  house 
all  fixed  necessaries,  as  grates,  chimney-pieces,  and 
wainscot,  the  billiard  table  and  a  pair  of  marble 
tables  and  house  clock,  there  will  be  paid  £5000. 
Thus  offisred,  26th  June  1679,  by  Sir  Stephen 
Fox."^ 

In  1683  we  have  a  delightful  picture  of  London. 
"  The  Thames  had  been  covered  with  ice  since  New 
Year's  Day ;  it  is  now  the  common  road  to  West- 
minster, both  on  foot  and  in  coaches,  and  much  better 

^  Hist.  MSS.  Com.^  Ormonde  Collection,  new  ser.,  vol.  v.  pp. 
279-80. 


278  LONDON 

than  the  streets.  One  entire  street  of  booths  is  built 
over  to  Southwark,  and  infinite  numbers  scattered  up 
and  down."^ 

In  1691  a  great  fire  occurred  at  Whitehall,  and  it 
is  worth  quoting  contemporary  newsletters  giving 
particulars  of  this  great  disaster,  typical  perhaps  of 
the  end  of  Whitehall  as  the  home  of  despotic  sove- 
reignty. On  11th  April  1691  it  is  stated  that  "on 
Thursday  between  eight  and  nine  o'clock  at  night  a 
fire  broke  out  in  the  uppermost  part  of  that  which 
was  the  Duchess  of  Portsmouth's  lodgings  at  White- 
hall, which  before  it  could  be  extinguished  consumed 
that  and  all  the  pile  of  buildings  fronting  the  Privy 
Garden,  stretching  itself  to  the  waterside  almost  to 
the  Privy  stairs,  and  burnt  the  lodgings  of  the  Duke 
of  Gloucester,  the  Earls  of  Portland,  Devon,  Mon- 
mouth, Overkirke,  and  others,  occasioned  as  it  is 
generally  reported  by  the  carelessness  of  a  woman 
servant,  who,  burning  a  single  candle  off  from  a  parcel, 
it  enkindled  the  wick  of  the  others  to  that  degree 
that  it  set  fire  to  the  apartment.  The  sentinel  gave 
an  alarm  by  firing  his  musket,  which  being  heard  by 

1  Hid.  MSS.  Com.,  xii.  (vii.)  p.  193.  In  l620  the  situation  had 
not  been  so  cheerful.  The  Lords  of  the  Council  write  to  the  Lord 
Mayor  and  Aldermen  complaining  of  the  impassable  state  of  the 
streets.  "  Though  the  frost  had  continued  nearly  three  weeks 
no  steps  had  been  taken  for  the  removal  of  the  ice  and  snow,  and 
they  required  innnediate  order  to  be  given  for  the  remedy  of  the 
inconvenience.  It  was  their  intention  upon  any  further  neglect 
to  address  themselves  to  the  aldermen  of  the  several  wards  where 
such  abuses  and  inconvenience  should  be  found,  and  call  them  to  a 
strict  account  for  tiie  same."     liememhrancict,  pp.  481-2. 


ti^f!" 


-o 
o 

tL. 


I 


DECADEXCE  270 

the  guard  they  came  to  extinguish  it,  shutting  all  the 

gates   leading    thereto.     His    JNIajesty   was    just    at 

supper,  and  went  forthwith  with  the  Princess  on  foot 

to  Arlington  House."     And  then  in  1G97-8,  January 

Gth,  we  have  in  a  private  letter  information  as  to  the 

second   fire,  the  writer  saying  that  he  "  was  all  the 

night  until  five  in  the  morning  in  the  Privy  Gardens 

in   apprehension  for  my  lodgings  on  account  of  the 

fire  at  AVhitehall.     Almost  all  Whitehall  is  gone.     It 

burnt    very   furiously.     The    Banqueting    Hall    and 

Lord     Portland's     lodgings    is    almost     all    that    is 

saved."  ^     This   is    all   that   we   have   now,    and   the 

famous  home  of  the  Stuarts  thus  passed  away  and 

allowed  of  the  building  of  government  offices,  with 

here  and   there  basements  belonging  to  the   former 

palace.     St  James's  Palace  was  all  that  was  left  for 

royal  residence  in  I^ondon,  and  from  this  circumstance 

the  Court  of  St  James  became  the  official  title  of  the 

English  Court. 

I  have  not  been  able  to  pay  attention  to  the  manu- 
facturing industries  of  London,  but  there  is  one 
interesting  feature  of  Stuart  London  which  it  is  well 
to  record.  It  is  the  weaving  of  tapestry,  already 
noted  as  a  mediieval  industry.  The  Countess  of 
Rutland  was  a  patroness  of  the  art,  and  a  letter,  20th 
June  1670,  describes  the  situation.  The  writer  is 
unable  "  personally  to  attend  my  honoured  Toadies 
commandes  aboute  her  tapestry  hangings.  I  shall 
cause  both  him  att  Mortlake  and  the  other  att 
1  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  xii.  (vii.)  pp.  325,  349, 


280  LONDON 

Lambeth  to  attend  you  with  theire  patternes,  the  one 
with  Hero  and  Leander,  the  latter  with  Vulcan  and 
Venus,  two  of  the  best  patternes  now  extant.  ...  I 
doubt  you  will  hardly  gett  Hero  made  under  25s. 
per  ell  to  be  well  don.  The  other  I  presume  will 
come  for  23s.  per  ell.  My  Lady  in  hir  letter  speakes 
of  Poynze,  but  take  it  of  my  credditt  he  hath  not  one 
good  peice  of  painting  or  designe  by  him,  besides  a 
deare  prateing  fellow  that  knowes  not  what  good 
worke  is.  With  which  of  them  soever  you  treate, 
contract  with  him  not  to  putt  any  sleezy  silke  in  the 
worke,  for  that  will  soone  grow  rough  and  sully  much 
sooner  than  Naples."  On  12th  July  there  is  "an  agree- 
ment by  William  Benood  of  Lambeth,  tapisheere,  for 
making  six  pieces  of  tapistry,  9  feet  deep,  from  the 
design  of  Vulcan  and  Venus."  Belvoir  Castle  con- 
tained many  examples  of  tapestry  before  this  addi- 
tion was  made,  and  the  inventory  of  1667  includes 
eight  pieces  of  tapestry  of  the  story  of  Alexander 
in  the  great  chamber,  three  pieces  of  "  Mortlake 
hangings "  of  the  Apostles  in  the  best  lodging, 
and  eight  pieces  of  the  same  hangings  in  my  lady's 
chamber.^  These  are  pleasant  recollections.  I^am- 
beth  has  now  lost  this  great  industry,  and  INIortlake 
retains  only  an  inscription  on  the  house  where  it 
was  carried  on  (see  Appendix  IX.). 

Have  we  then  from  this  conglomerate  of  contem- 
porary records  succeeded  in  describing  the  true  posi- 
tion of  Stuart  London  in  connection  with  the  previous 

1   lliM.  MSS.  Com.,  xii.  (v.)  pp.  18,  20,  347. 


DECADENCE  281 

ages  of  Ijondon  ?  I  think  we  have.  It  is  disjointed 
evidence  coming  from  a  disjointed  London.  A'^owhere 
do  we  find  I^ondon  doing  anything  greater  than  hving 
on  its  past.  Tudor  London  was  disrupted  by  entirely 
new  views,  and  to  a  hu'ge  extent  it  lived  on  these 
views.  They  were  great  and  expansive  views.  Stuart 
London  possessed  no  new  views,  no  discoverable 
views  at  all.  All  seems  a  patchwork  made  up  of  a 
want  of  conception  both  in  the  city  itself  and  in 
Parliament.  The  city  did  well  when  it  put  ancient 
machinery  into  operation.  It  did  ill  by  not  extending 
the  use  of  this  machinery  to  meet  the  new  conditions. 
Perhaps  it  could  not  trust  Whitehall  at  its  very  gates, 
and  therefore  wrapped  itself  in  as  much  of  its  ancient 
rules  and  practices  as  it  could  keep  going.  At  all 
events,  we  know  that  Whitehall  did  not  trust  the  city, 
and  we  have  in  this  mutual  mistrust  the  principal 
cause  of  the  estrangement  between  I^ondon  within 
the  walls  and  the  growing  London  without.  The 
remarkable  thing  is  that  we  have  been  able  to  detect 
amidst  the  strife  of  things  so  momentous  as  those 
which  happened  to  Stuart  London,  elements  which 
seem  to  enable  us  once  more  to  pick  up  the  line  of 
continuity — in  formula?  if  not  in  essence.  The  pre- 
sence of  the  formulae,  however,  may  prove  of  greater 
significance  than  we  think,  if  only  it  can  be  shown  to 
contain  two  correlative  elements — if  it  shows  that 
the  formuhu  used  by  the  Stuart  Court  were  derived 
from  the  principles  resident  in  the  minds  of  the 
citizens  in  common    council  assembled ;    if  it  leads 


282  LONDON 

up  to  something  more  than  formulae  when  the 
great  occasion  once  more  arises.  It  is  as  connect- 
ing Hnks  with  the  future  that  these  formula?,  if  they 
be  formulae,  will  prove  to  have  retained  the  spark 
of  life. 


CHAPTER   X 

CHANGES   AND    REVIVAL 

There  are  several  events  which  make  it  certain  that 
Georgian  London  was  distinct  from  Tudor  and  Stuart 
London  in  many  ways.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  not 
worried  so  much  by  the  sovereign.  Secondly,  it 
turned  to  its  own  municipal  affairs  with  something  of 
its  old  spirit.  It  turned  back  to  much  of  its  own 
municipalism.  Its  actions  may  reveal  fitfulness  and 
inconsistency,  but  the  underlying  principle  of  its 
actions  was  neither  fitful  nor  inconsistent  in  its 
application.  Once  more,  under  the  Georges,  London 
is  a  London  to  be  loved.  We  did  not  trust  Tudor 
London.  We  perhaps  despised  Stuart  London. 
Thougli  there  is  much  in  Georgian  London  which 
tells  of  a  further  break-up  of  history  and  tradition, 
though  there  is  no  effort  to  bring  London  to  an 
accepted  position  as  the  capital  city,  though  there 
are  a  thousand  and  one  blots  by  which  to  estimate 
the  might-have-been — there  is  still  much  to  remind 
us  of  the  older  London.  Once  again  we  come  upon 
a  period  not  devoted  to  the  ideal  of  London  as 
history  unfolds  it,  but  containing  a  strong  reference 

283 


284  LONDON 

back  to  ancient  ideals.  Once  again  we  come  upon 
a  period  when  municipalism  is  strong,  though  upon 
narrow  Hues.  Once  again  we  are  in  the  presence 
of  the  problem  of  expansion,  though  it  appears  in  a 
more  attractive  form.  Indeed,  Georgian  London,  in 
the  midst  of  the  destruction  of  its  buildings,  is  an 
attractive  I^ondon. 

We  have  seen  London  taking  a  prominent  position 
in  relation  to  the  sovereign.  We  have  seen  it  acting 
in  support  of  the  House  of  Commons  just  when  the 
Commons  were  definitely  entering  into  its  place  in 
the  sovereignty  of  the  realm.  We  are  now  to  see  it 
take  a  prominent  position  in  relation  to  Parliament, 
or  rather  to  the  House  of  Commons.  The  two  posi- 
tions are  part  of  the  same  original.  London,  always 
associated  constitutionally  with  the  sovereign  power, 
comes  into  touch  with  Parliament  when  the  sove- 
reign power  became  resident  more  in  Parliament 
than  in  the  personal  sovereign.  This  appears  to  be  a 
remarkable  fact  by  itself,  but  it  becomes  still  more 
remarkable  when  we  consider  the  terms  in  which 
it  is  conveyed  and  the  conscious  expression  of  a  con- 
tinuation from  older  and  similar  conditions. 

We  cannot,  of  course,  give  the  entire  story,  but  the 
chief  points  are  quite  sufficient.  First  of  all,  the 
historical  sequence  is  worth  noting.  London  acted 
almost  independently  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  kings ; 
exercised  prominent  constitutional  powers  during  the 
Norman  and  Plantagenet  rule  ;  neglected  this  position 
under  the  Tudors,  and,  in  form  at  all  events,  revived 


CHANGES    AND    UFA  IVAL  285 

it,  as  we  have  seen,  during  the  Stuart  reign.  London 
also,  as  we  have  seen,  afforded  shelter  to  the  House 
of  Commons  at  the  moment  when  it  was  being 
attacked  by  the  monarch  to  prevent  it  from  taking 
its  independent  position  in  the  sovereignty  of  the 
nation.  \Ve  thus  see  the  continuity  of  the  central 
idea  of  a  special  position  assumed  by  and  allowed  to 
London  towards  the  state,  changing  the  character  of 
its  expression  as  the  state  developed. 

In  this  continuity  will  be  found  the  true  significance 
of  the  action  of  London  towards  the  Georgian  Parlia- 
ment. It  was  expressed  in  1761  by  Horace  Walpole, 
who  protested  against  the  Common  Council  presuming 
to  "  usurp  the  right  of  making  peace  and  war."  The 
Common  Council,  "  as  was  its  wont,"  we  are  told 
by  Dr  Sharpe,  drew  up  instructions  for  the  city 
members  as  to  the  policy  they  were  to  pursue  in  the 
Parliament  of  1762.  They  were,  among  other  things, 
to  obtain  the  repeal  of  a  recent  Act  for  the  relief  of 
insolvent  debtors,  and  to  keep  a  sharp  eye  on  "  the 
distribution  of  the  national  treasure."  These  are 
extraordinary  not  ordinary  city  functions,  and  that 
they  find  expressions  as  ordinary  acts  is  a  significant 
factor.  The  well-known  John  Wilkes  episodes  pro- 
vide an  all-important  formula  for  such  transactions. 
The  sheriffs  were  called  upon  by  the  House  of  Lords 
to  explain  their  action  at  the  public  burning  of  the 
famous  No.  45  of  the  Xorfh  Bi'iton,  edited  by  Wilkes, 
and  the  Duke  of  Bedford  stated  the  case  in  the 
following   terms :    "  Such   behaviour   in    any  smaller 


286  LONDON 

town  would  have  forfeited  their  franchises.  The 
Common  Council  had  long  been  setting  themselves  up 
against  Parliament."  This  is  precisely  the  evidence 
which  is  required  to  support  the  historic  view  of  this 
great  transaction.  London  alone,  not  any  other  city, 
could  take  up  such  a  line  of  action,  and  it  is  because 
London  alone  possessed  the  historic  sense  of  the  situa- 
tion, founded  upon  the  historic  continuity  of  events. 
Wilkes  had  been  arrested  on  a  general  warrant,  and 
the  Common  Council,  on  21st  February  1764,  passed  a 
vote  of  thanks  to  their  members  for  their  endeavour  to 
obtain  a  parliamentary  declaration  as  to  the  illegality 
of  general  warrants,  and  voted  to  Pratt,  chief  justice 
of  the  Common  Pleas,  who  had  pronounced  the  arrest 
to  be  illegal,  the  freedom  of  the  city.  The  chief 
justice,  in  acknowledging  the  compliment,  referred  to 
the  city  as  "  the  most  respectable  body  in  the  king- 
dom after  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament."  Wilkes 
struggled  on  against  his  expulsion  from  Parliament 
after  his  election  for  Middlesex,  and  the  city  supported 
his  claim,  the  freeholders  of  Middlesex  meeting  at 
Mile  End  and  there  resolving  to  stand  by  the  repre- 
sentative of  their  choice.  Wilkes  was  returned  a 
fourth  time  as  member  of  Parliament  for  Middlesex, 
and  was  rejected  by  the  House  of  Commons.  This 
act  called  up  the  city  once  again,  and  the  lord  mayor 
was  called  upon  to  summon  a  Common  Hall,  "  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  the  sense  of  the  livery  of  London 
on  the  measures  proper  to  be  pursued  by  them  in  the 
present   alarming   situation   of  public    affairs."     The 


CHANGES   AND    UEVIVAI.  287 

lord  mayor  declined,  but  the  livery  had  their  way,  for, 
at  the  Common  Hall  held  for  the  election  of  sheriffs 
on  24th  June  1769,  they  drew  up  their  petition  in  no 
hesitating  terms.  They  could  get  no  redress,  and  in 
March  1770  a  Common  Hall  was  specially  summoned, 
and  passed  another  address,  remonstrance,  and  petition 
to  the  king.  Horace  Walpole  denounces  this  in 
terms  which  once  again  seem  to  help  forward  the 
historical  character  of  the  city's  action :  "A  bolder 
declaration  both  against  king  and  Parliament "  was 
never  seen.  It  did  not  stand  alone,  however,  for  later 
on,  when  Beckford,  the  lord  mayor,  delivered  his 
memorable  speech  to  the  king,  and  when  Chatham, 
writing  to  Beckford  in  the  name  of  liberty,  expressed 
himself  in  the  language  of  history,  "  The  spirit  of 
old  England  spoke  that  never  -  to  -  be  -  forgotten 
speech.  .  .  .  Adieu,  then,  for  the  present  (to  call 
you  by  the  most  honourable  of  titles),  true  Lord 
Mayor  of  I^ondon,  that  is,  first  magistrate  of  the 
first  city  of  the  world ! "  there  were  echoes  of  the 
old  conditions. 

We  cannot  get  away  from  the  position  here  so 
remarkably  unfolded.  It  is  not  political  faction.  It 
is  constitutional  and  historical  right,  and  throughout 
the  entire  period  occupied  by  these  pages  we  have  not 
come  across  such  great  attributes  nor  such  resounding 
titles  produced  by  them.  Hitherto  there  seems  to 
have  been  no  chance  for  London  being  acclaimed  in 
this  fiishion.  Statesmen  of  Plantagenet  days  looked 
askance   at   the   liberty  of  the  city.     Statesmen    of 


288  LONDON 

Tudor  and  Stuart  days  denied  its  liberty.  Statesmen 
of  the  Georgian  period  included  the  great  Chatham, 
and  so  the  political  view  of  London  is  duly  repre- 
sented. It  brings  to  this  last  period  the  spirit  of  the 
early  periods,  and,  though  the  constitutional  position 
of  the  city  in  relation  to  Parliament  was  debated  so 
fiercely,  it  was  always  on  grounds  which  now  appear 
to   be   quite   remarkable   in   their    historical   aspect. 


«    Evening  Vijf.t. 

Bntmintrt  it  kteJch  o*'  uie  j 
ia  am&  <d  tuiamail  •< 
fat  dilbMMmiMed  hj   i»,  * 

r-4 

Chatham's  letter  does  not  complete  the  story,  how- 
ever. Horace  Walpole's  Memoirs  of  George  III. 
(vol.  iv.  p.  191)  contains  the  story  of  the  House  of 
Commons'  messenger  who,  in  1771,  came  to  arrest 
Miller,  the  printer  of  the  London  Evening  Post.  It 
is  full  of  incidents  which  illustrate  the  city's  claim 
to  its  ancient  rights.  The  lord  mayor  declared  that 
no  power  had  a  right  to  seize  a  citizen  of  London 
without  authority  from  him  or  some  other  magistrate, 
nor  should  he  while  he  held  that  office  ;  the  messenger 
of  the  House  was  committed  for  assault  and  bound 


CHANGES    AND    REVIVAL 


289 


over  by  sureties  to  appear  at  the  Guildhall  at  the 
next  session.  Such  high  attacks  on  their  authority 
roused  the  House  of  Commons  and  startled  the  min- 
isters. The  entire  proceedings  are  remarkable,  but 
when    "  the    House   of  Commons  sent  for   the  lord 


■'?V'.-n:^ 


t>!!ftJi/i  Tavern,  Ad^iy:h  i6,   t??!. 

Suppolrters  of  the  Bill  of  Rights 

ATtht  e.vnfji  niueji  iffeKitrd  ALmi-.Ts  of 
this  Scaity,  a  special  Meeting  is  drfnid 
by  tbt  Tretrficrers  to  be  htld  QV.  Tutjday  next,  to 
ttnjider  iffome  Gmtificallsn  to  bt  given  t7  thofe 
Prinfcri,  xvbo,  hy  appealing  to  tk/  L<iU's  of 
their  Ciunlry,  iiiw  done  their  Duty,  in  order  to 
preftrvc  the  moft  invdhiMe,  if  not  the  ONL  v 
Right  which  jl  ill  rt  mil  ins  to  Englijhmm. 

T.  BodJingtm,  Seeretary, 
Dinner  tn  Table  at  Four  e  Click. 


Poftfcript* 

LONDON. 

TJiurfdav,  in  confequ.'nce  of  Colonel  Onflow's 
motion,  li.  BaldwiQ,  T.  Evans.  T.  Wright, 
and  S.  Bladonj  publiflicrs  of  four  evening  papirs, 
attended  at  the  Uoufe  of  Commons.  WhP.e  they 
were  waiting  there,  T.  Evans  was  fent  for  home, 
his  wife  haviDf  braite  her  leg.  About  ten  o'clocii 
JJ.  Baldwin  »tu  called  to  ihe  b.'r.  and  after  fo.ne 


roomeftf.  Almoft  every  »*»  in  the  toum  offered 
to  b«  bail  for  the  Mcff.ngtr.  Th^  MaiUion 
Hoili'e  p  as  excredin-r)y  full  of  p»opIe,  but  not 
the  leait  confufion  or  liiiiurbancc  hap'penedi 

J.  Miller  m!i/!  h  •very  inenfiblt  of  ihe  blfjf.ngs  sf 
'.he  L  ?;i'.t  under  lubiil;  ii!  n  frotee'tij,  not  t'l  lake  the 
cailiiji a}^'))/ unity  -yf' returning  hit  nioji griu'tfulihanks 
to  the  R'rht  Hill,  the  LcrdMijor,  for  Ir.i  ftrifl,  yet 
liberal  aJmiiiiftr.ukn  rfthem  to-v:arJs  himyrfierday. 
Ir  anj  thing  comU  r.dd  ta  the  aft,  il  -w.is  his  Lord- 
Jhip'i  patei  n.i!  cxpnjpoui  in  favour  cf  the  libertiei 
tf  the  fubjeci — ixprffi-.m  that  iiHI  uiways  be  hit 
heji  ctilogium,  n«d  ioid  hii  clara^er  ftngidmij  de,tw 
to  the  Citizeai  t-fLzndiit. 

He  likeivif  returns  lit  ref'i-tful  thiinksto  Mejrs. 
AUeriHtn  W/dxes,  eind  Ohv.-r; — thif.rmcrof'thiit 
gctillimen  jrcut  a  fiefh  J  roof  rf  his  uh'-^-raried  ejji- 
diiity  in  the  great  CAUiB  OF  FREEGOH — tbt 
latter  Jhe-..:Kd  himfelf  every  imjj  ixorthj  the  (lejii 
der.tc  of  bis  (ondnutrls. 

Hefiiuitty  expr.ffti  his  c'digatiiHt  to  Robert  Mcr- 
ris,  E/ji  C^unffllor  at  i.tu',  ixhofe  juJitlous  aud 
anim.itcd  cuP.duSi  he  -u  ill  ever  niaember  ivith  ero' 
lilitde  iitid  .jlec'/i. 


This  nigltt  thire  will  be  .1  Priry  Council  held 
on  occ.ifion  of  tiie  deierini  nation  yeiterday  at  the 
Manfion-houfe. 

Paul  Davrell.  OenK  is  aoDointed  a  Lieiiu>. 


From  the  London  Evening  Post,  March  14-16,  1771. 

mayor's  book,  and  tore  out  the  messenger's  recognis- 
ances," the  dramatic  element  belonged  to  the  House 
of  Commons,  but  the  constitutional  element  remained 
with  the  Common  Council  of  the  city.  The  House 
of  Commons  did  not  prove  itself  master  by  this  re- 
markable method  of  asserting  its  position.  It  left 
the  Common   Council    with    all   the   city   traditions 

untouched. 

19 


290  LONDON 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  the  events  more 
closely.  We  have  recovered  for  observation  in  their 
historical  setting  the  salient  features  of  the  great 
struggle  of  Georgian  London  against  king  and 
Parliament  on  behalf  of  the  liberty  of  the  subject. 
In  these  features  we  recognise  the  old  London  claim, 
we  hear  of  Mile  End  as  the  constitutional  meeting- 
place,  we  see  the  Common  Hall  assuming  its  old 
position  as  the  grumble  place  of  outraged  citizenship. 
We  see  the  lord  mayor  defending  citizens'  rights  in 
terms  which  set  our  pulses  throbbing  ;  we  see  city  law 
set  against  state  law,  as  we  have  already  seen  it  in  the 
year  book  of  Edward  II.  And  in  these  facts  we  have 
historical  continuity  involving  many  points  of  ancient 
London  law  and  custom  over  which  the  citizens  had 
struggled  for  a  long  time,  and  which  above  all  things 
now  supplied  the  modern  counterparts  of  the  ancient 
position.  "  We  know  the  value  and  consequence," 
said  the  sheriffs  of  the  city  to  Lord  Weymouth,  "  of 
the  citizens'  right  to  apply  immediately  to  the  king 
and  not  to  a  third  person,  and  we  do  not  mean  that 
any  of  their  rights  and  privileges  should  be  betrayed 
by  our  means." 

Looking  back  at  the  historical  position  of  the  city, 
there  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  there  is  conscious  con- 
tinuity in  these  things.  In  the  case  noted  above  the 
action  of  the  Common  Hall  is  perhaps  the  most  re- 
markable feature.  Not  for  several  centuries  had  it 
been  allowed  to  take  independent  action  in  London's 
affairs.    The  first  refusal  of  the  lord  mayor  was  in  strict 


CHANGES    AND    REVIVAL  291 

accord  with  the  precedent  which  has  been  ah-eady  ex- 
amined. The  successful  effort  of  the  Common  Hall 
in  obtaining  their  meeting  was  a  resumption  of  still 
more  ancient  methods.  At  every  stage  we  discover 
constitutional  acts,  not  revolutionary  attempts,  and 
Georgian  London  during  these  events  was  acting  in 
the  spirit  of  Plantagenet  London,  with  the  methods 
of  Norman  London,  in  accordance  with  the  mastery 
assumed  by  Anglo-Saxon  London,  and  with  fornmla 
and  purpose  derived  from  its  position  as  city-state  of 
the  Romans.  To  have  reached  this  stage  through 
the  phases  that  history  has  allowed  us  to  pass  is  the 
greatest  argument  for  the  interpretation  put  upon 
past  events  ;  and  though  there  is  nothing  further  to 
chronicle  down  to  modern  times,  modern  I^ondon 
may  almost  feel  the  throb  of  events  which  reach  back 
from  the  eighteenth  century  to  their  beginnings  in 
the  fifth. 

Once  again  we  must  point  out  that  all  this  struggle 
was  constitutional,  not  factious  or  revolutionary. 
London  has  never  led  a  revolution  as  Paris  did.  She 
decided  against  Charles  L,  but  it  was  in  support  of  the 
country,  not  initiative  in  the  manner  of  a  revolutionary 
city.  London  has  ever  acted  constitutionally.  The 
distinction  is  of  enormous  importance,  for  it  indicates 
a  permanently  historical  position  and  not  a  mere  out- 
burst on  a  special  occasion.  There  is  no  real  dispute 
anywhere  as  to  London's  main  position,  only  as  to 
the  degree  to  which  it  applies,  and  in  this  fact  lies  the 
strength  of  my  main  position  as  to  continuity.     In 


292  LONDON 

this  last  instance  it  was  a  struggle  by  the  modern 
House  of  Commons,  just  becoming  sensible  of  its 
own  inherent  democratic  power,  against  the  rights  of 
the  ancient  city,  long  sensible  of  the  value  of  its 
traditional  custom.  That  such  a  struggle  should  have 
taken  place — that  the  Common  Council  of  London 
and  the  House  of  Commons  of  the  nation  should  be 
standing  up  against  each  other  on  the  common  ground 
of  constitutional  liberty — is  surely  remarkable  testi- 
mony to  the  strength  and  force  of  the  traditional  posi- 
tion of  liOndon.  No  other  city  would  have  entered 
into  such  a  struggle.  No  other  city  had  the  right  to 
make  such  demands.  That  London  could  and  did  act 
as  it  acted  is  because  of  its  ancient  independence  of 
state  government.  It  is  the  city  as  an  institution 
once  more  putting  its  traditional  custom  into  the 
practical  form  of  constitutional  action  at  the  moment 
when  constitutional  action  was  necessary  to  meet 
the  great  emergency.  Traditions  such  as  London 
possesses  are  allowed,  properly  allowed,  to  sleep 
during  the  periods  of  no  importance,  or  of  small 
importance,  in  matters  which  concern  it  in  the 
national  progress,  but  these  events  show  that  they 
burst  into  vigorous  life  again  when  the  occasion  is 
great.  The  mid-seventeenth  century  occasion  was 
great.  And  that  London  took  it  greatly,  as  part  of 
its  city  task,  is  the  only  aspect  of  this  memorable 
episode  which  it  is  possible  for  the  historian  to  take. 

These  events   are   paralleled   in   purely  municipal 
events  by  the  assertion  of  the  city  to  ancient  rights. 


CHANGES    AND   REVIVAL  293 

The  parallel  is  not  unimportant.  If  London  acts 
greatly  in  great  matters  she  is  in  a  mood  to  do  so  in 
more  domestic  matters.  Ceremonial  functions  are 
expressive,  institutional  functions  are  still  more  so, 
and  it  is  well  to  have  at  least  one  example  which  will 
bear  out  the  parallel  which  always  arises  at  these 
junctures. 

A  passage  preserved  in  The  Gentleman  s  Magazine 
of  1786  (Part  I.,  p.  77)  tells  us  that:  "On  Friday, 
13th  January,  tlie  Lord  Mayor,  Recorder,  Sheriffs, 
etc.,  going  to  St  Margaret's  Hill,  in  the  Borough,  to 
hold  the  Quarter  Sessions,  found  Sir  Joseph  jMawbey 
in  the  chair,  holding  the  Quarter  Sessions  for  the 
county,  and  trying  a  prisoner  for  felony.  The  Lord 
Mayor  waited  patiently  till  the  trial  was  over,  and 
sentence  passed  on  the  prisoner  to  be  transported  to 
Africa.  It  was  then  expected  that  Sir  Joseph  would 
have  resigned  the  chair,  instead  of  which  he  was 
proceeding  to  other  trials,  which  brought  on  a  warm 
altercation  between  the  Recorder  and  Sir  Joseph. 
The  Recorder  insisted  he  was  infringing  the  rights 
of  the  City.  Sir  Joseph  insisted  on  the  privilege  of 
the  County.  The  Recorder  pointed  out  Guildford, 
Croydon,  or  Kingston,  as  the  proper  places  for  that 
business.  At  length  Sir  Joseph  quitted  the  chair,  and 
the  Lord  Mayor  took  his  place."  The  point  here 
raised  was  by  no  means  insignificant.  It  not  only 
expressed  the  city's  claim  to  jurisdiction  in  South wark, 
but  the  resumption  of  its  claim. 

The  inevitable  question  of  expansion  has  now  to  be 


294  LONDON 

considered.  Georgian  expansion  differed  from  Stuart 
expansion  in  many  ways.  It  was  more  defined.  It 
was  the  period  of  the  laying  out  of  great  estates,  and 
the  period  of  the  great  town-planning  scheme  from 
Regent's  Park  to  Pall  INlalL  It  was  also  the  period 
when  the  beauties  of  the  most  beautiful  surrounding 


-f         -                                             -                                      r- 

•:««*-^ 

_^|J-. 

(2) 

■>^ 

■.\\ 

,•■'■'       "             >v>            ,     ,. 

.-5!>--'^ 

^ ■■.. 

--. 

A                   iiiilffflMlfii 

/ 

X' 

"    '.     '^'^^^    ■ 

\,_^ 

^:. 

The  River  Fleet  near  Bagnigge  Wells. 

country  were  being  discovered  and  used  by  jaded 
citizen  or  politician. 

This  latter  point  is  interesting  on  its  own  account, 
and  it  has  a  decided  influence  upon  the  development 
of  the  expansion  line. 

Islington  is  the  first  attraction.  The  Islington 
spas  were  apparently  first  opened  about  1684,  for  two 
curious  tracts  are  thus  entitled,  A  Mornings  Ramble : 


E 
o 


CO 

D 
O 

X 

■:^ 

a: 
O 
>■ 


CHANGES   AND   REVIVAL 


295 


oi\  Islington  Wells  Burlesqt,  1684,  and  An  Ex- 
clamation from  Tunhridge  and  Epsom  against  the 
Neiv-found  JFells  at  Isli?igton,  1684.  So  late  as 
1736  Islington  waters  were  recommended.  A  letter, 
dated  21st  April  of  that  year,  from  an  anxious 
father   to    his    son   in    London,    says :    "  Dr    Crowe 


A  View  of  Pa  a  ding  ton  Cliurcli  from  the  Green 

thinks  that  if  you  could  abide  cold  bathing  it 
would  go  a  great  way  in  your  cure.  He  has  also 
a  great  opinion  of  Islington  waters  for  your  case."^ 
In  1755  was  printed  a  curious  book,  entitled  Isling- 
ton :  or,  the  Humours  of  the  New  Tunbridge  Wells, 
and  in  1774  Islington  was  a  watering-place,  and  people 
would  ride  there  from  the  city  to  drink  the  waters. - 
Hyde  Park  is  described  in  the  correspondence  of 

1   Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  V.  p.  4.00. 
-   Ibid.,  XV.  (vi.)  p.  274. 


296  LONDON 

1721  at  Castle  Howard  as  "  so  shamefully  kept," 
and  in  such  evidence  we  can  detect  why  the  expansion 
of  London  went  on  still  further  afield.  Centres  of 
health  were  sought  for  by  those  who  wished  still 
to  remain  in  touch  with  London.  Lady  Lechmere 
stayed  at  Greenwich,  and  was  "  mighty  fond  of  that 
place."  She  is  described  as  being  at  Paddington  in 
1733,  "  for  the  air,  having  been  out  of  order  of  late  "  ; 
and  a  little  later  on  in  the  same  year,  "  Lady  Lechmere 
not  recovering  so  fast  as  I  could  wish,  I  have  taken  a 
lodging  for  her  at  Turnham  Green  and  she  proposes 
going  there  this  week,  Sir  John  Shadwell,  her 
physician,  assuring  me  country  air,  gentle  exercise, 
and  a  regular  diet  would  soon  set  her  in  a  fair  way 
of  recovery."  ^ 

The  Earl  of  Burlington  built  his  seat  at  Chiswick, 
still  in  existence  as  a  London  suburban  residence  of 
the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  and  celebrated  as  the  death- 
place  of  both  Canning  and  Fox  and  the  meeting- 
place  of  many  statesmen  on  great  occasions.  The 
king  in  1827  altered  Buckingham  House  into  Buck- 
ingham Palace,  and  altered  it  to  please  no  contem- 
porary authority  and  no  succeeding  authority.  The 
wonderful  marble  arch  entrance  to  the  palace  remained 
until  it  was  recognised  as  too  stupid  for  this  purpose  ; 
it  was  then  removed  to  Hyde  Park,  to  become  an 
unsightly  blot  in  its  new  position,  and  now  remains 
stupidly  in  the  middle  of  converging  roads  to  fulfil 
no  purpose  of  any  kind. 

1   Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  xv.  (vi.)  pp.  35,  54,  99,  107. 


CHANGES   AND    REVIVAL 


297 


Such  foolishness  as  this,  however,  did  not  mark 
every  Georgian  scheme,  for  the  great  Regency  scheme 
of  town-phmning  will  ever  remain  as  a  prominent  and 
beautiful  example  of  the  possibilities  of  London.  It 
provided  for  its  future  as  well  as  its  own  present,  and 
we  of  this  age  can  appreciate  the  extent  of  the  debt 


Buckingham  Palace  about  1820. 

of  London  for  this  great  scheme  when  it  is  compared 
with  the  miserable  littleness  of  nearly  all  later 
schemes.  I  am  claiming  this  scheme  for  Georgian 
London.  It  is  eminently  a  part  of  it,  typical  of  it, 
typical  of  the  best  part  of  it,  and  the  scheme  itself 
is  a  remarkable  instance  of  broad-minded  and  far- 
seeing  policy  in  town-planning,  at  a  time  when  town- 
planning,  as  a  science,  was  undreamed  of  It  is  well 
worth  relating  in  detail,  for  it  is  a  story  to  be  proud  of, 
and  it  begins  by  the  recognition  of  precisely  the  same 


298  LONDON 

principle  which  we  have  noted  was  wisely  advocated 
in  Parliament  when  the  rebuilding  of  London  after 
the  Fire  was  being  considered,  and  it  was  a  Govern- 
ment official  who  formulated  this  principle. 

In  1793  the  Surveyor-General  of  Crown  Lands 
directed  the  attention  of  the  Treasury  to  the  oppor- 
tunity which  would  be  afforded,  upon  the  expiration 
of  the  leases  of  the  Marylebone  Park  estate,  for 
laying-out  the  estate  in  an  elegant  manner,  thereby  at 
one  and  the  same  time  increasing  the  Crown  revenue 
and  adding  to  the  public  amenities  of  the  neighbour- 
hood. The  estate,  which  was  formerly  the  outer 
park  attached  to  the  royal  mansion  of  Henry  VI IL 
at  Marylebone,  and  comprised  543  acres,  was  let  on 
leases  expiring  in  1803  and  1811,  the  greater  part 
being  held  by  the  Duke  of  Portland.  The  Treasury 
took  the  matter  up,  and  offered  a  premium  of  £1000 
for  the  best  design  for  laying-out  the  estate,  but  after 
waiting  some  years  the  Commissioners  of  Woods  and 
Forests  reported  that  architects  would  not  bestow 
their  time  nor  risk  their  reputation  in  competitions 
of  the  kind,  and  only  three  plans,  all  by  the  same 
person,^  were  received.  The  Commissioners  accord- 
ingly fell  back  upon  the  departmental  architects,  and 
in  1810  instructed  Mr  Leverton  and  Mr  Chowne  of 
the  Land  Revenue  Department,  and  Mr  John  Nash 
of  the  Department  of  Woods,  to  submit  schemes  for 

1  A  Mr  John  White,  the  agent  of  the  Duke  of  Portland  for  the 
portion  of  the  Marylebone  Park  estate  held  by  him.  This  Mr 
White  vigorously  o))posed  the  scheme  finally  adopted. 


a 


u 


«  < 


00       g 

—   U. 


Q 
< 

H 

CO 


CHANGES    AND    UEVTVAT.  299 

the  development  of  the  estate.  The  scheme  sub- 
mitted by  the  former  proposed  to  lay  out  two-thirds 
of  the  ground  in  streets  and  squares  upon  the  hnes 
of  the  neighbouring  Bedford,  Portland,  and  Portman 
estates,  and  to  let  the  remaining  one-third  for  villas 
with  gardens  or  for  nurseries.  INlr  Nash's  plan  was 
formed  on  a  different  and  greater  view  of  the  subject. 
His  proposal  was  to  create  another  Hyde  Park  in 
the  growing  district  of  St  IMarylebone,  with  squares, 
circuses,  and  crescents  in  the  best  style  of  architecture. 
The  Park,  of  between  200  and  300  acres,  was  to 
form  the  centre-piece,  and  the  villas,  with  extensive 
shrubberies  annexed,  were  to  be  grouped  round,  the 
whole  being  girded  with  an  external  ride  or  drive. 
In  the  valley  within  the  Park  a  large  ornamental 
piece  of  water  was  to  be  formed,  and  a  chain  of 
markets  was  to  be  established  on  the  eastern  side. 
Mr  Nash's  scheme,  which  was  urged  would  be  an 
antidote  to  the  extensive  speculative  building  then 
going  on  in  the  locality,  was  adopted  practically  in  its 
entirety,  the  principal  alterations  being  due  to  the 
Government's  decision  to  allow  greater  open  space 
and  fewer  buildings. 

Intimately  bound  up  with  the  Park  scheme  were 
two  other  proposals — (1)  the  construction  of  a  canal 
through  the  northern  portion  of  the  Park,  and  (2)  the 
provision  of  better  means  of  access  from  the  Park  to 
the  West  End.  The  canal  was  to  be  a  continuation 
of  the  Grand  Junction  Canal  from  Paddington,  to 
unite  with  the  Thames  at  Limehouse;  and,  in  support 


300  LONDON 

of  what  might  have  appeared  to  be  the  intrusion 
of  an  essentially  commercial  undertaking  into  a  high- 
class  estate,  the  promoters  pointed  out  the  advantage 
of  having  a  supply  of  water  for  the  ornamental  lake, 
and  ready  water  conveyance  to  the  barracks  and 
markets  to  be  erected  on  the  eastern  side.  Nash,  in  his 
first  plan,  designed  the  canal,  of  a  length  and  breadth 
equal  to  that  in  St  James's  Park,  to  pass  through  the 
upper  part  of  the  Park.  The  sides  were  to  form  three 
terraces  or  public  promenades — "  a  grand,  a  novel 
feature  in  the  Metropolis."  The  Commissioners, 
however,  would  not  agree  to  this  encroachment  on 
the  Park,  and  the  canal  was  relegated  (to  Nash's  dis- 
appointment, it  would  appear,  and  at  heavy  loss  to 
the  Company)  to  the  outer  circle,  with  a  collateral 
cut  or  basin  reaching  down  by  Albany  Street. 

The  laying-out  of  the  Park  estate  necessitated  new 
means  of  communication  with  the  west  and  north- 
west quarters  of  London.  The  only  convenient 
communication  from  Pall  Mall  and  Charing  Cross 
to  St  Marylebone  at  that  time  was  by  means  of  Bond 
Street.  In  Bond  Street  were  then  concentrated  all 
the  West  End  fashionable  shops,  and  the  congestion 
of  traffic  therein  was  becoming  unbearable.  In  INIessrs 
Leverton  and  Chowne's  scheme,  a  new  street,  70  feet 
wide  and  practically  in  a  straight  line,  was  to  be  cut 
through  from  Oxford  Street  through  Piccadilly  to 
the  top  of  the  Haymarket  and  so  to  the  east  end  of 
Pall  Mall.  Mr  Nash  proposed  a  street  beginning  at 
Charing  Cross  and    terminating  at   Portland    Place. 


CHANGES   AND   REVIVAL  301 

Pall  JMall  was  to  be  continued  eastwards  to  meet  the 
Haymarket.  From  Carlton  House  the  new  street 
was  to  go  at  right  angles  Avith  Pall  JMall  into 
Piccadilly.  A  circus  was  to  be  formed  at  Piccadilly, 
and  just  north  of  the  circus  a  square,  with  a  public 
building  in  the  centre,  was  placed.  The  street  then 
ran  from  the  western  corner  of  the  square  in  a  slightly 
oblique  direction  to  Oxford  Street  (where  another 
circus  was  formed),  and  was  continued  north  in  a 
straight  line  to  meet  Portland  Place.  Portland  Place, 
then  the  widest  street  in  London  (100  feet),  was  taken 
as  the  model  for  the  breadth  of  the  street  throughout 
its  entire  length,  except  at  the  lower  end  near  Pall 
Mall,  where  it  was  200  feet.  In  the  light  of  recent 
discussions  as  to  the  form  of  rebuilding  Regent  Street, 
it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Nash  designed  colonnades 
to  cover  the  whole  of  the  pavements  in  the  streets 
from  Pall  Mall  to  Oxford  Street.  One  advantage 
urged  was  that  the  tops  of  the  colonnades  would  form 
balconies  to  the  lodging-rooms  ov^er  the  shops,  from 
which  the  occupiers  would  survey  the  gay  scenes  and 
so  "  induce  single  men,  and  others  who  only  visit 
town  occasionally,  to  give  a  preference  to  such  lodg- 
ings." Criticisms  as  to  colonnades  being  dark  and 
gloomy  and  liable  to  misuse  were  met  by  Nash. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Nash's  plan  did  not  contain 
the  famous  Quadrant.  He  designed  the  square,  so  as 
to  avoid  purchasing  property  in  Golden  Square.  The 
Treasury,  in  April  1813,  approved  Nash's  scheme, 
subject  to  the  square  north  of  Piccadilly  Circus  being 


302 


LONDON 


/-' 

1       >' 


liIlliiLJ.H'^'~jH| 


*~^c^j 


Regent  Street — "  Plan  of  proposed  new  street  from  Charing  Cross  to  Portland 

Place,"  1813. 


CHANGES   AND    REVIVAL  303 

altered  to  a  curve,  and  to  a  further  curve  being  intro- 
duced north  of  Oxford  Circus.  This  hitter  curve  was 
introduced  partly  to  shorten  the  long  vista  down 
Portland  Place,  and  partly  to  avoid  some  expensive 
property  belonging  to  Earl  St  Vincent.  In  addition 
Pall  Mall  East  was  to  be  continued  as  far  as  St 
Martin's  Church,  and  the  approach  from  Cockspur 
Street  improved.  Nash  had  suggested  that  a  square 
or  crescent  might  be  formed  at  Charing  Cross,  but 
this  was  not  included  in  the  scheme,  Trafalgar  Square 
coming  twenty  years  later. 

The  Act  authorising  the  improvement  received 
royal  assent  in  July  1813,  and  the  carrying  of  it  out 
was  promptly  commenced.  By  1816  the  external 
drive  and  the  roads,  fences,  and  plantations  had  all 
been  completed,  the  bed  of  the  ornamental  water  had 
been  excavated,  and  so  much  of  the  canal  as  passed 
through  the  estate  was  finished.  Building  operations 
were,  however,  slow,  the  lots  remained  on  hand  much 
longer  than  had  been  anticipated,  and  the  Com- 
missioners of  Woods  and  Forests  had  to  resort  to 
farming  operations  to  bring  in  revenue.  In  one 
portion  of  the  estate  potatoes  were  raised  between  the 
avenues  of  trees,  but  with  little  pecuniary  return. 
Another  venture — the  sowing  of  9|  acres  with  a  new 
root,  the  mangel-wurzel — was  a  great  success,  over 
£600  net  profit  being  realised  in  1815.  By  1819  but 
little  progress  had  been  made,  on  account  of  the 
failure  of  the  builder  who  had  taken  up  certain  plots  ; 
but  by  1823  considerable  lettings  had  been  effected. 


304  LONDON 

and  the  buildings  on  the  south  and  east  side  began  to 
spring  up.  Within  the  next  three  years  there  was  a 
great  demand  for  sites,  and  most  of*  the  scheme,  as 
contemplated  by  Nash,  was  well  on  its  way  to  com- 
pletion. Alterations  were,  however,  made  in  the 
direction  of  lessening  buildings  within  the  Park. 
Thus,  in  the  centre  of  the  Park,  on  what  is  now  known 
as  the  inner  circle,  it  was  proposed  to  erect  inner 
external  circuses  of  houses,  in  the  centres  of  which 
the  designer  suggested  a  public  building  should  be 
placed  to  receive  the  statues  and  monuments  of 
distinguished  men.  This  proposal  was  abandoned 
in  1826,  when  it  was  also  decided  to  leave  open 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  Park.  The  cost  of 
acquiring  the  property  required,  and  forming  sewers 
and  pavements,  proved  far  greater  than  had  been 
anticipated,  and  the  land  revenue  of  the  Crown  was 
largely  absorbed  for  some  years  in  meeting  the 
liabilities  of  the  scheme.  By  1819,  £1,000,000  had 
been  expended.  The  street  was  then  completed  from 
Piccadilly  to  Pall  Mall,  and  there  was  a  good  demand 
for  building  plots.  By  1823,  sites  bringing  in  a 
yearly  rental  of  £34,500  had  been  let.  The  total  cost 
of  the  work  was  £1,533,000,  and  the  rentals  now 
receivable  fully  justify  the  view  taken  of  the  method 
and  principle  of  improving  an  urban  estate.  The 
whole  story  is  worth  being  told,  if  only  as  a  lesson  to 
modern  London — to  the  Government  departments 
which  arrange  petty  one-sided  improvements  ;  to  the 
municipal   authorities   who  are    content  to   improve 


CHANGES    AND    REVIVAL 


305 


London  by  feet  and  inches  instead  of  by  outlet  roads 
capable  of  meeting  the  traffic  ;  and  to  estate  owners 
wlio  do  not  appreciate  that  free  and  open  access  to 
tlieir  property,  whether  residential  or  business,  is  an 
absolute  necessity  for  the  increasing  of  site  values. 
Londoners  will  aj^preciate  the  story  by  a  just  under- 
standing of  the  relief  the  scheme  has  given  to  the 


Regent  Street  in  1827. 

requirements  of  to-day.     There  is  indeed  no  aspect 

of  it  which  does   not  lead   to  the  contemplation  of 

what  a  great  London  may  mean. 

There   has   been   nothing   quite  so   extensive  and 

useful   since.     The   great   scheme  of  Kingsway  and 

Aldwych  is  the  nearest,  with  its  bold  running  of  a 

tramway  from   the  Embankment  under   the  Strand 

and    connecting    north    and    south    London.       But 

Kingsway  and  Aldwych  stop  short  at  Holborn  and 

do  not  follow  the  parallel  Regent  Street  scheme  by 

20 


306  LONDON 

penetrating  at  least  to  the  Euston  Road.  Other 
schemes,  the  East  and  West  India  Dock  Road,  the 
Whitechapel  Road,  have  proved  useful  in  a  limited 
way  instead  of  extremely  valuable  in  a  great  way, 
and  thus  London  proceeds  with  its  expansions,  with- 
out ideals  and  without  effective  practical  results. 

A  remarkable  feature  of  the  expansion  of  Georgian 
London  comes  from  quite  a  different  source,  namely, 
the  development  of  the  great  estates.  This  has  given 
us  one  of  the  most  beautiful  features  of  modern 
London,  namely,  the  squares  as  they  are  called.  The 
Bedford,  Grosvenor,  Cadogan,  Portman,  Camden,  and 
other  estates  were  laid  out  in  no  mean  fashion.  There 
was  no  cramping,  and  there  was  design,  with  the 
result  that  throughout  I^ondon  this  method  has  been 
to  an  extent  adopted,  and  has  given  to  London  no 
less  than  three  hundred  and  sixty-three  of  these 
beautiful  islets  of  green  amidst  the  acreage  of  bricks. 

The  oldest  square  in  London  is  St  James's,  which 
was  authorised  by  an  Act  of  1725 ;  then  follow 
Charterhouse  Square  in  1742,  Golden  Square  in  1750, 
Grosvenor  Square  in  1774,  Hoxton  Square  in  1777, 
the  Bedfordbury  Squares  in  1799  and  succeeding 
years,  Edwardes  Square,  Kensington,  in  1819,  the 
remainder  following  on  at  intervals.  Every  one  of 
these  squares  has  an  interesting  history.  Statesmen 
have  resided  there,  political  actions  of  the  greatest 
importance  have  been  discussed  and  decided  in 
dining-rooms  and  studies  of  houses  in  these  squares, 
tragedies  have   been  enacted,  lives  have  been   spent 


CHANGES    AND    HEVIVAI.  307 

in  the  making  of  historical  events  of  the  greatest 
moment  to  the  nation.  Hut  even  the  accumuhited 
history,  if  it  could  be  written,  would  not  equal  one 
great  factor  which  appears  in  the  original  system  of 
control  conferred  by  the  wisdom  of  Parliament  upon 
the  inhabitants  of  squares.  They  are  governed  by 
a  series  of  remarkable  private  statutes.  Thus  the 
Southampton  Estate  Act  of  1801  places  in  the  hands 
of  commissioners  not  only  all  the  powers  of  paving, 
lighting,  cleansing,  watering  w^iich  were  necessary,  in- 
cluding the  sinking  of  wells  for  the  supply  of  water — 
a  feature  which  is  still  preserv^ed  in  Berkeley  Square 
— but  also  the  duty  of  appointing  "  such  number  of 
watchmen  and  patroles  "  as  they  shall  think  fit,  and 
providing  "them  with  proper  arms,  ammunition, 
weapons,  clothing,  for  the  discharge  of  their  duty," 
the  cost  of  which  services  w^as  to  be  met  by  the  levy 
of  a  rate  upon  the  inhabitants.  These  surely  are 
remarkable  provisions.  They  set  up  islands  of 
government  endowed  with  powers  which  were  hardly 
possessed  by  duly  constituted  municipal  authorities, 
and  the  question  at  once  arises  whether  the  great 
power  of  an  armed  constabulary  was  demanded  by 
the  condition  of  things  in  London  at  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  or  w^hether  it  was  the 
demand  which  property  made  as  tlie  price  of  its 
development.  We  need  not  seek  an  answer  to  this 
question  too  closely,  for  we  shall  find  it  among  the 
conditions  which  accompanied  the  expansion  and 
growth  of  London. 


308  LONDON 

Expansions  from  the  centre  did  not  lead  to  im- 
provements in  the  centre,  and  there  are  several 
examples  of  the  bad  conditions  which  gradually  were 
allowed  to  exist. 

One  element  in  the  bad  conditions  is  most  serious. 
In  1729  private  correspondence  describes  London 
as  "  a  kind  of  mistress  dissolute  in  principle,  loose  in 
practice,  and  extravagant  in  pleasiu'e  " ;  and  later  on 
we  have  George  Selwyn  writing  to  Lord  Carlisle  in 
1775  (3rd  August),  from  Almack's,  that  "  it  is  dreadful 
the  increase  of  violence  and  audaciousness  of  robberies 
in  London,  and  for  many  miles  about  at  this  time. 
I  am  much  more  struck  with  the  terror  of  these 
insurgents  than  with  any  at  a  greater  distance,  and 
should  be  heartily  glad  that  every  ounce  of  silver 
plate  was  immediately  melted  down  throughout  the 
kingdom  towards  raising  a  viarechausse  for  our 
defence  and  supporting  a  better  police."  A  little 
later  on  in  the  same  year  he  again  writes  on  this 
subject :  "  Not  only  the  environs  of  this  town,  but 
all  the  little  bye-lanes  and  avenues  to  it,  are  filled 
with  footpads  and  highwaymen."^ 

Bad  roads  helped  towards  such  conditions.  A 
Tfip  through  London,  a  ftimous  book,  which  in  1728 
reached  a  fifth  edition,  gives  us  a  lamentable  picture 
of  the  streets  about  the  Houses  of  Parliament : 
"  That  I  may  be  regular  in  my  complaints  of  all 
publick  and  private  nuisances  I  shall  exhibit  a  bill 
against   the    streets  and  Highways  of  the    city  and 

^   Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  vol.  XV.  (vi.)  pp.  57,  283,  290. 


CHANGES   AND    REVIVAL  309 

liberty  of  Westminster.  Every  avenue  is  guarded 
by  a  turnpike,  whereby  large  sums  of  money  are 
annually  raised  for  their  repair,  and  the  inhabitants 
are  not  without  apprehensions  of  seeing  turnpikes 
upon  the  Thames  upon  another  year ;  yet  the  streets 
and  passages  leading  to  both  houses  of  parliament 
are  in  such  great  disorder  that  1  have  known  those 
members  who  have  pass'd  thither  in  their  coaches  so 
toss'd  and  jumbled  about  that  it  has  been  near  an 
hour  e'er  they  could  recover  the  use  of  their  limbs  and 
proceed  to  business.  A  commoner  once  being  over- 
turned in  his  chariot  in  King's  Street  went  immediately 
to  the  House  and  in  very  lively  terms  remonstrated 
against  the  badness  of  the  ways.  Another  member 
opposed  the  motion,  urging  that  as  the  publick 
companies  for  raising  water  were  continually  laying 
down  pipes  a  bill  for  repairs  of  the  streets  would  prove 
to  little  or  no  purpose." 

This  is  only  a  reflection  from  earlier  conditions  as 
described  in  that  curious  satire  entitled  Sorbieres 
Journey  to  London  in  1698,  when  it  states  that  "the 
Gutters  are  deep  and  laid  with  rough  edges  which  make 
the  coaches  not  to  glide  easily  over  'em,  but  occasion 
an  employment  for  an  industrious  sort  of  people 
call'd  Kennel-Rakers." 

The  indictment  against  the  turnpikes  is  complete — 
there  will  be  "  turnpikes  upon  the  Thames  another 
year,"  and  the  Commons  House  of  Parliament 
solemnly  debates  the  conditions  of  the  road  ap- 
proaches   to   its    own    chamber.       City   government 


310  LONDON 

in  London  was  destroyed  by  the  methods  and  con- 
ditions of  expansion,  and  the  signs  of  destruction  are 
Avorse  than  anything  we  have  previously  encountered. 

This  is  the  last  record  we  are  going  to  have  of  this 
unregulated  expansion.  The  record  is  not  creditable 
to  a  city  having  the  history  and  traditions  of  I^ondon, 
nor  to  a  government  which  conceived  and  carried 
out  the  great  Regency  scheme.  If  Parliament  had 
not  quite  realised  its  duty  to  or  its  relationship  to 
London,  London  had  a  very  distinct  idea  of  its  own 
position  in  the  past,  and  therefore  of  its  claims  upon 
Parliament.  Neither  corporation  nor  Parliament 
acted,  and  the  inheritance  of  such  inaction  has  pressed 
with  terrible  force  upon  modern  London. 

In  spite  of  this,  however,  the  great  fact  from  this 
period  does  not  rest  entirely  upon  the  note  of  despair, 
but  on  that  of  hope.  One  cannot  doubt  that  Georgian 
London  took  its  strong  action  against  Parliament 
because  of  its  ancient  independence,  its  ancient  con- 
trolling force,  its  sense  of  historical  continuity.  That 
there  is  no  coming  back  to  this  point  in  our  story  of 
continuity  makes  the  importance  of  it  all  the  greater. 
It  is  the  point  where  we  leave  ancient  London  and 
its  continuity  of  aim  and  ideal  for  the  new  London  of 
to-day  without  aim  and  without  ideal.  But  if  aim 
and  ideal  come  back  to  London  it  will  gladly  look 
upon  the  events  of  its  Georgian  period,  uneven  though 
they  are,  as  the  point  of  contact  from  which  the 
continuity  of  history  may  once  more  be  taken  up. 


CHAPTER   XI 

GROWTH 

Expansion  has  hitherto  been  limited  in  area  and 
occasional  rather  than  continuous.  We  now  come 
definitely  to  an  expansion  which  has  made  London, 
with  its  suburbs,  the  largest  city  community  in  the 
world.  It  has  grown  from  its  small  area  of  one 
square  mile,  the  largest  Roman  city  in  Britain,  to 
the  immense  county  area  of  one  hundred  and  twenty 
square  miles,  and  it  is  growing  beyond  this  boundary. 
The  various  estate  Acts  afford  the  first  most  effec- 
tive evidence  as  to  how  this  expansion  has  taken 
place,  and  the  maps  of  London  allow  the  stages  to 
be  set  out  with  precision.  There  are  eight  different 
periods  of  extension — from  the  city  walls  to  the  first 
extension  up  to  1658,  from  1658  to  1668,  thence  to 
1745,  thence  to  1799,  thence  to  1832,  then  the  1832 
extension,  next  from  1832  to  1852,  and  finally  from 
1862  to  1887.  Thus  is  shown  the  ever-wideninsf  area 
creeping  along  the  highways,  and  gradually  filling  in 
the  backs  until  at  last  the  monster  city,  as  it  is  called, 
has  become  one  vast  extent  of  bricks  and  mortar  with 
little,  if  any,  architectural  purpose  or  design,  with 
unlovely  houses  in  unlovely  streets — a  city  spoiled  of 

311 


312  LONDON 

its   natural   beauty  and   delight   by  the    unthinking 
minds  of  the  modern  Englishman. 

It  is  curious  that  no  direct  record  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  city  wall  exists.  It  went  slowly,  not 
effectually  to  make  a  feature  of  the  newer  London. 
It  appears  in  perfect  order  in  JefFery's  Plan  of 
London,  1735,  and  had  disappeared  from  the  maps 
when  Rocque  published  his  map  in  1746.  Active 
destruction  went  on  about  this  period.  Acts  of 
Parliament  were  passed  for  improving  the  city,  and 
there  is  an  ominous  list  of  "  openings  to  be  made 
in  the  City  of  London  pursuant  to  an  Act  of 
Parliament  passed  this  last  session,"  printed  in  The 
Gentleman  s  Magazine  for  1760,  and  nearly  all 
relating  to  the  wall.  This  Act  was  that  of  33 
Geo.  II.,  cap.  30,  and  its  title  sets  forth  its  object : 
"  An  Act  for  widening  certain  streets,  lanes,  and 
passages  within  the  City  of  I^ondon,  and  liberties 
thereof,  and  for  opening  certain  new  streets  and 
ways  within  the  same,  and  for  other  purposes  there- 
in mentioned." 

The  first  extension  is  along  the  river-bank  to 
Westminster  on  the  north  and  Southwark  on  the 
south,  showing  the  river  to  have  been  the  principal 
highway  of  the  city.  The  next  extension,  just  after 
the  fire,  is  north  of  the  city  area  towards  Old  Street. 
Three-quarters  of  a  century  later  (1745)  we  get  a 
great  extension  all  round  up  to  Hyde  Park  on  the 
west,  just  north  of  Oxford  Street,  Theobald's  Road, 
and   Old   Street  on  the  north,  to  Whitechapel   and 


'5" 


I 


A*\ 


/ 


/>     J 


GROWTH  313 

Limehouse  on  the  east.  Another  fifty  years  (1799) 
we  have  a  further  fringe  of  narrow  dimensions  pene- 
trating to  Knightsbridge  on  the  west,  creeping  up 
Edgware  lload,  taking  in  the  southern  part  of  Maryle- 
bone,  extending  to  Camden  Town,  adding  to  the 
1745  extension  in  the  east  a  narrow  belt  all  round, 
and  finally  showing  the  first  great  extension  in  North 
Lambeth  along  the  banks  of  the  river.  In  1832  the 
Regent's  Park  district  on  the  north,  a  large  district  of 
Lambeth  on  the  south,  and  a  further  extension  of 
Bermondsey  and  South wark  are  the  principle  features. 
Islington,  St  Pancras,  Shoreditch,  Rethnal  Green, 
and  Mile  End  also  filled  up  at  this  date,  together 
with  a  little  bit  of  Greenwich.  In  1862  the  great 
era  of  building  set  in,  and  all  round  the  boundary  of 
the  1832  limits  we  have  great  extensions.  The  next 
stage  is  1887,  which  again  shows  an  extension  of  the 
building  area  all  round  the  map ;  and  now,  twenty 
years  later,  we  have  scarcely  any  boundary  of  London 
left,  for  building  has  gone  on  spreading  into  Kent, 
Surrey,  JNIiddlesex,  and  Essex  at  a  pace  which  almost 
defies  the  cartographer. 

There  are  several  obvious  effects  from  this  con- 
tinual extension  of  the  building  line,  but  it  also 
resulted  in  a  reconstruction  of  underground  London 
by  the  conversion  of  the  ancient  streams  of  London 
into  sewers.  Thus  the  King's  Scholars'  Pond  sewer 
was  so  called  because  it  emptied  itself  into  the 
Thames  at  the  King's  Scholars'  Pond  (near  the  pre- 
sent Vauxhall  Bridge),  on  "  the  great  level  extending 


314  LONDON 

from  the  Horse  Ferry  to  Chelsey  Mead. "  Incident- 
ally it  may  be  mentioned  that  during  the  reign  of 
Queen  Anne  the  name  of  the  sewer  was  dutifully 
changed  to  Queen's  Scholars'  Pond  sewer.  Anciently 
it  was  known  as  the  Tyburn  brook,  and  later  as  the 
Aye  brook,  and  flowed  down  the  hill  from  INIarylebone 
Fields,  passing  near  the  old  village  of  Tyburn  and 
across  the  Acton  or  Tyburn  road  (Oxford  Street)  and 
the  present  Brook  Street,  through  Mayfair  to  the 
Stone  Bridge,  situated  at  the  "  dip "  in  modern 
Piccadilly.  Passing  under  the  bridge  and  the  high 
road  to  Kensington,  it  entered  what  is  now  known 
as  the  Green  Park.  Large  ponds  were  formed  in 
the  course  of  the  sewer  in  this  part  of  the  park.  At 
the  bottom  of  the  hill  the  streamlet  passed  through 
the  gardens  of  Goring  or  Arlington  House,  where 
Buckingham  Palace  now  stands,  and  along  by  the 
"coach  road  to  Chelsea" — the  present  Buckingham 
Palace  Road — and  what  is  now  Vauxhall  Bridge 
Road  to  the  river.  At  diff'erent  periods  the  stream 
was  altered  in  various  parts  of  its  course,  and  gradually 
covered  in  and  converted  into  an  underground  sewer. 
There  were  other  small  tributaries  of  the  Thames 
which  became  in  course  of  time  underground  sewers. 
One  was  the  Bayswater  brook,  or  West  Bourne, 
which  became  the  important  Ranelagh  Sewer,  and 
part  of  which  was  utilised  to  form  the  Serpentine. 
A  glance  at  the  map  of  the  original  winding  course 
of  this  stream  will  easily  explain  the  origin  of  the 
name  "  Serpentine."     Further  west  was  the  Counter's 


GROWTH  315 

Creek,  with  its  tributary,  the  Stinking  Ditch.  The 
Ravensbourne  and  the  Wandle  are  the  last  of  the 
ancient  streams  of  London. 

It  is  idle  to  say  that  this  growth  and  its  accompany- 
ing circumstances  have  had  any  meaning  for  states- 
men and  political  philosophers.  It  has  been  ignored 
for  so  long,  has  been  allowed  to  proceed  without 
direction  and  without  control,  has  brought  with  it 
such  immeasurable  wrongs,  that  it  has  almost  become 
an  accepted  truism  that  London  cannot  be  organised 
into  a  civic  unit.  Like  other  apparent  truisms  this 
one  is  false,  and  the  degree  to  which  its  falsity  extends 
may  best  be  understood  by  the  conditions  of  life 
which  attended  the  phenomenal  growth  of  our  great 
city.  Pride  in  such  a  growth  is  reasonable  enough 
if  it  had  been  accompanied  by  great  ideas  of  what 
London  was  growing  into.  It  is  immensely  pitiful 
when  we  know  the  facts.  Full  details  of  the  facts 
cannot  be  given,  for  they  would  fill  a  volume,  but 
as  illustrations  I  will  quote  from  official  reports 
examples  which  are  by  no  means  peculiar  to  one  part 
of  London. 

An  official  report  of  1849  contains  the  following 
description  of  Hammersmith : 

"  Brook  Green  on  its  western  side  contained  an 
open  ditch,  wide,  stagnant,  and  with  a  large  accumula- 
tion of  foul  deposit,  receiving  the  drainage  of  most  of 
the  houses  in  its  vicinity,  and  of  a  foul  and  pestilential 
ditch  at  the  rear  of  several  cottages  in  Slater's  Build- 
ings, running,  in   a  covered   sewer,  across  the  main 


316  LONDON 

road,  thence  open,  taking  a  very  circuitous  course 
through  market-gardens  to  its  outfall  in  the  Thames, 
near  Burlington  Gardens,  polluting  with  its  exhala- 
tions the  atmosphere  throughout  its  entire  course. 

"  Various  blocks  of  houses  at  Brook  Green  drain 
into  this  ditch  by  open  ditches.  In  these  the  foul 
deposit  is  on  a  level  with  the  floors  of  the  houses,  the 
main  ditch  not  affording  a  sufficent  outfall  for  the 
discharge  of  the  foul  and  foetid  matter,  which  has 
largely  accumulated  and  emits  highly  offensive 
emanations. 

"  Proceeding  more  into  the  heart  of  Hammer- 
smith, and  nearer  the  southern  boundary,  as  a  further 
illustration  of  the  nature  of  its  drainage,  is  a  foul 
open  ditch  having  its  origin  from  a  covered  drain  in 
the  main  road  near  the  Nag's  Head  public-house  ; 
thence  running  westward  past  the  Angel  Inn,  in  a 
covered  drain ;  thence  turning  from  the  main  street, 
resuming  its  open  and  offensive  condition,  through 
the  yards  at  the  rear  of  the  houses  on  the  south-side 
of  Little  George  Street,  receiving  in  its  course  the 
privies  on  its  banks  attached  to  some  eighteen  or 
twenty  houses. 

"  The  ditch  throughout  is  in  an  excessively  filthy 
condition  ;  but  in  this  portion  there  is  a  much  larger 
accumulation  of  filth,  and  a  proportionate  increase  of 
the  noxious  effluvium. 

"  The  tidal  water  flows  up  this  ditch,  driving  before 
it  the  foul  accumulations ;  these  are  left  by  the 
receding  tide  in  the  upper  part  nearest  the  houses, 


GROWTH  317 

and  in  the  covered  drain  in  the  main  road,  exposing 
fresh  surfaces  of  filth  to  active  decomposition." 

The  district  of  the  Potteries  in  North  Kensington 
was  similarly  situated. 

"  On  the  north,  east,  and  west  sides  this  locality  is 
skirted  by  open  ditches,  some  of  them  of  the  most 
foul  and  pestilential  character,  filled  with  the  accumu- 
lations from  the  extensive  piggeries  attached  to  most 
of  the  houses.  Intersecting  in  various  parts,  and 
discharging  into  the  ditches  on  the  north  and  west, 
are  many  smaller  but  still  more  offensive  open 
ditches,  some  skirting  houses,  the  bedroom  windows 
of  which  open  over  them ;  some  running  in  the  rear 
and  fronts  of  houses,  others  at  the  sides  and  through 
the  middle  of  the  streets  and  alleys,  loading  the 
atmosphere  throughout  their  course  with  their 
pestilential  exhalations. 

"  The  streets  are  unpaved  and  full  of  ruts,  the  sur- 
face is  strewn  with  refuse  of  almost  every  conceivable 
description ;  they  are  at  times  wholly  impassable. 
At  all  seasons  they  are  in  a  most  offensive  and 
disgusting  condition,  emitting  effluvia  of  the  most 
nauseous  character. 

"  The  majority  of  the  houses  are  of  a  most  wretched 
class,  many  being  mere  hovels  in  a  ruinous  condition, 
and  are  generally  densely  populated  ;  they  are  filthy 
in  the  extreme,  and  contain  vast  accumulations  of 
garbage  and  offal,  the  small  gardens  attached  to 
some  being  purposely  raised  by  this  to  a  greater 
height." 


318  LONDON 

At  St  Giles  the  conditions  were  even  worse  as 
they  are  described  in  the  official  report : 

"  The  houses  described  on  the  accompanying  plan 
comprise  Church  lane  and  Carrier  street,  Fletcher's 
court,  Kennedy  court,  Walsh's  court,  Hampshire 
Hog  yard,  &c.,  in  the  parish  of  Saint  Giles,  and  form 
the  remnant  of  that  mass  of  buildings  commonly 
called  the  '  Rookery,'  recently  taken  down  for  the 
formation  of  New  Oxford  street.  The  property  on 
the  north  of  Church  lane  belongs  to  the  executors 
of  Col.  Buckridge,  and  that  on  the  south  to  Sir  John 
Hanmer.  It  is  the  resort  of  the  most  depraved  and 
filthy  class  of  the  community. 

"  Much  might  be  said  of  the  inconveniences  and  in- 
sufficient accommodation  under  which  the  multitudes 
suffer  who  are  obliged  to  occupy  these  houses  ;  for 
common  necessaries  of  health,  water  supply,  and  the 
use  of  privies,  they  have  to  pay  indirectly  by  excessive 
prices  on  articles  of  consumption,  which  are  sold  at 
the  places  where  these  are  to  be  obtained.  These 
pumps  and  necessaries  are  generally  locked  up  after 
a  certain  hour  in  the  morning.  Many  of  the  houses 
originally  had  privies,  but  they  have  been  destroyed 
by  the  sub-landlords  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the 
enormous  periodical  cost  of  emptying  the  cesspools. 
An  obvious  consequence  of  this  scarcity  of  conveni- 
ence is,  that  the  surface  channels  of  the  streets, 
passages,  and  courts  are  the  receptacles  for  refuse  and 
excreta,  and  the  occasional  sweeping  in  the  middle 
of  the  day  produces  the  most  prejudicial  effect  upon 


GROWTH  319 

the  atmosphere."  And  then  comes  the  touch  of 
economic  cynicism :  "  This  property  is  considered  of 
the  most  Uicrativ  e  description.  Two  or  three  houses 
are  underlet  to  a  lessee  for  a  term  of  years,  at  about 
20/.  per  annum  ;  he  underlets  tlie  property  house  by 
house  at  about  35/.  per  annum  ;  these  are  again  let 
out  in  rooms  at  a  still  greater  remunerative  rent ;  and 
lastly,  the  separate  beds  in  rooms  are  underlet  to 
vagrants,  tramps,  and  tlie  refuse  of  society,  at  about 
3d.  per  night ;  producing,  after  deducting  rates,  taxes, 
and  losses,  about  70/.  per  house  per  annum." 

In  January  1847  a  Report  was  prepared  by  a 
Committee  of  the  Statistical  Society  of  London  in 
reference  to  this  place,  which  confirms  the  official 
report  of  two  years  later.  The  following  is  an 
extract : 

"  Your  Committee  have  thus  given  a  picture  in 
detail  of  human  wretchedness,  filth,  and  brutal 
degradation,  the  chief  features  of  which  are  a  disgrace 
to  a  civilised  country,  and  which  your  Committee 
have  reason  to  fear,  from  letters  that  have  appeared 
in  the  public  journals,  is  but  the  type  of  the  miser- 
able condition  of  masses  of  the  community,  whether 
located  in  the  small,  ill-ventilated  rooms  of  manu- 
facturing towns,  or  in  many  of  the  cottages  of  the 
agricultural  peasantry.  In  these  wretched  dwellings 
all  ages  and  both  sexes,  fathers  and  daughters, 
mothers  and  sons,  grown-up  brothers  and  sisters, 
stranger-adult  males  and  females,  and  swarms  of 
children,  the  sick,  the  dying,  and  the  dead,  are  herded 


320  LONDON 

together  with  a  proximity  and  mutual  pressure  which 
brutes  would  resist. " 

That  these  sort  of  things  were  not  quickly  mended 
is  proved  from  the  evidence  given  by  the  Earl  of 
Shaftesbury  before  the  Royal  Commission  on  the 
Housing  of  the  Working  Classes,  from  which  the 
following  extracts  are  quoted  : 

"  When  they  began  [about  1857]  to  pull  down 
parts  of  the  houses  in  Tyndall's-buildings,  Gray's- Inn- 
road,  the  swarms  of  vermin  were  so  great  that  .  .  . 
the  workmen,  accustomed  to  that  sort  of  thing,  struck 
work  .  .  .  until  fire-engines  had  been  introduced 
charged  with  water  that  destroyed  these  animals." 
(Question  25.) 

"  Formerly  there  were  a  great  many  long  alleys, 
and  when  I  used  to  go  into  them  if  I  stretched  out 
my  arms  I  struck  the  walls  on  both  sides.  ...  In 
these  alleys  lived  from  200  to  300  people,  and  there 
was  but  one  accommodation  for  the  whole  of  that 
number,  and  that  at  the  end  ;  .  .  .  one  could  not 
even  approach  that  end.  .  .  .  We  could  not  possibly 
go  into  the  rooms  at  the  bottom  of  the  alley,  but  we 
were  obliged  to  speak  to  the  people  through  the 
windows  above."     (Question  31.) 

"  The  air  was  dreadfully  foul.  The  sun  could  not 
penetrate,  and  there  never  was  any  ventilation." 
(Question  32.) 

"  Frying-pan-alley,  Holborn,  was  very  narrow,  the 
only  necessary  accommodation  being  at  the  end.  In 
the  first  house  that  I  turned  into  there  was  a  single 


GROWTH  321 

room  ;  the  window  was  very  small,  and  the  light 
came  through  the  door.  I  saw  a  young  woman  there. 
.  .  .  '  Look  there,'  said  she,  '  at  that  great  hole ;  the 
landlord  will  not  mend  it ;  I  have  every  night 
to  sit  up  and  watch,  or  my  husband  sits  up  to 
watch,  because  that  hole  is  over  a  common  sewer, 
and  the  rats  come  up,  sometimes  twenty  at  a  time, 
and  if  we  did  not  watch  for  them  they  would 
eat  the  baby  up.'  .  .  .  That  could  not  exist  now." 
(Question  86.) 

"  I  went  into  a  low  cellar  [in  Tyndall's-buildings]. 
.  .  .  There  were  a  woman  and  two  children  there.  .  .  . 
From  a  hole  in  the  ceiling  there  came  a  long  open 
wooden  tube  supported  by  props,  and  from  that 
flowed  all  the  filth  of  the  house  above,  right  through 
the  place  where  this  woman  was  living,  into  the 
common  sewer.  ...  I  believe  much  of  that  sort  of 
thing  occurred  in  London  which  could  not  occur  now. 
Again,  in  another  place  I  had  heard  that  there  were 
people  living  over  cesspools.  .  .  .  We  went  there, 
and  in  the  room  there  was  boarding  upon  the  floor ; 
upon  that  boarding  were  living  a  woman  and  three 
children.  We  lifted  up  the  boarding  and  there  was 
the  open  cesspool  .  .  .  not  one  foot  below  the  surface 
of  the  room.  ...  It  took  an  hour  to  clean  by  means 
of  the  machine."     (Question  37.) 

"  They  go  into  these  tenement  houses  ;  they  remain 

there  a  couple  of  months  or  three  months ;  they  go 

out  again,  and  are  succeeded  by  another  family  ;  they 

leave  all  their  filth.  .  .  .  The  other  family  come  in, 

21 


322  LONDON 

stay  three  months,  and  deposit  their  filth  and  oft'  they 
go."     (Question  39.) 

"  There  was  a  famous  place  called  Bermondsey 
Island.  ...  It  was  a  large  swamp ;  a  number  of 
people  lived  there  ...  in  houses  built  upon  piles  [in 
about  1864].  ...  So  bad  was  the  supply  of  water 
there  that  I  have  positively  seen  the  women  dip  their 
buckets  into  the  water  over  which  they  were  living, 
and  in  which  was  deposited  all  the  filth  of  the  place, 
that  being  the  only  water  that  they  had  for  every  pur- 
pose— washing,  drinking,  and  so  on."    (Question  141.) 

"  In  the  old  times  the  water  was  supplied  some- 
times only  once  a  week,  and  at  other  times  twice  a 
week.  .  .  .  The  water  lasted  for  20  or  25  minutes. 
.  .  .  Many  of  them  had  to  take  it  home  and  put  it 
under  their  beds,  where  it  inhaled  all  the  noxious 
atmosphere."     (Question  175.) 

Does  anyone  study  that  terrible  revelation  of  the 
real  London — the  massive  substratum  of  London  life, 
in  Mr  Charles  Booth's  seventeen  volumes,  Life  and 
Labour  of  the  People  of  London  ?  The  figures  will 
become  obsolete  as  time  makes  them  into  history, 
and  ten  years  have  already  passed  since  they  were 
published,  but  the  facts  will  remain ;  and  when  the 
history  of  modern  civilisation  comes  to  be  written,  the 
glory  and  the  sunshine,  the  science  and  the  discovery, 
the  conquest  of  the  whole  world  for  the  purpose  of  its 
economic  products,  will  not  efface  the  histories  of 
such  human  units  as  London.  The  effects  of  ex- 
cessive  rents    in   the   shrinkage    of    accommodation 


GROWTH  323 

and  the  consequent  overcrowding,  together  with  the 
enormous  area  of  real  poverty,  make  up  a  London 
which  it  does  not  do  to  dwell  upon  when  one  is 
engaged  upon  seeking  out  its  story  of  continuity. 
Tottenham  Court  Road,  St  Giles,  and  Soho  have 
ceased  to  be  historical  areas  when  they  contain 
merely  the  victims  of  rack-renting,  with  a  home  life 
shrunken  into  the  horrible  classification  of  overcrowd- 
ing. The  poverty  areas,  once  charming  spots  of 
London  extensions,  are  now  closed  to  all  except  those 
who  herd  there — St  James  Westminster,  St  Saviour's, 
Old  Street,  and  South  Shoreditch  being  the  worst 
districts.  And  as  we  go  round  the  map,  making 
comparisons  between  district  and  district,  between 
poverty  area  and  poverty  area,  we  are  met  with  "  a 
picture  of  expansion  in  all  directions  following  lines 
and  laws  so  definite  as  to  provide  a  stable  basis  for 
action  and  to  remove  all  excuse  for  want  of  prepara- 
tion."^ These  are  Mr  Booth's  words — the  words  of 
a  statistical  historian ;  and  though  perhaps  London 
does  not  now  contain  the  hideous  details  which 
Lord  Shaftesbury  depicted,  the  fact  remains  that 
we  arrive  merely  at  "  a  stable  basis  for  action  "  and 
not  at  action  itself. 

If  one  could  suggest  that  this  evidence  was 
exaggerated  or  untrue,  even  if  it  only  related  to 
isolated  cases,  it  would  have  been  possible  to  ignore 
it.  Unfortunately,  as  it  stands  it  is  the  other  side  to 
the  picture  of  London's  growth — that  portion  of  the 

^   Final  volume,  p.  15. 


324  LONDON 

picture  which  has  deprived  London  of  its  natural 
inheritance,  and  even  now  links  it  up  with  a  great 
mileage  of  mean  streets  instead  of  with  broad  and 
stately  avenues  leading  to  the  distances  beyond,  linked 
together  by  every  convenience  which  citizenship  has 
the  right  to  command. 

The  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  The  appropriation 
of  legislative  power  by  the  state,  the  result  of 
modern  political  thought,  has  produced  complete 
definiteness  in  the  state  and  indefiniteness  in  the 
cities.  And  there  is  no  clearing  away  of  this  indefi- 
niteness. We  have  seen  the  converse  of  this  state 
of  things  under  Plantagenet  rule  and  the  lessons  it 
taught  to  London.  AVe  see  now  the  position  to 
which  London  has  been  brought.  It  has  never 
been  endowed  for  its  greater  position  among  cities 
with  its  proper  government,  and  for  a  long  time  had 
no  government  of  any  kind.  This  indictment  is 
proved  in  many  ways.  It  was  proved  to  the  House 
of  Commons  in  1855  when  an  attempt,  a  fatal  attempt, 
was  made  to  give  it  an  experimental  form  of  govern- 
ment. Sir  Benjamin  Hall  summarised  the  position 
in  the  following  terms  : 

"  It  had  a  population  of  2,233,108  ;  number  of 
inhabited  houses  291,240;  rateable  value  £9,011,230, 
exclusive  of  the  city  of  London.  The  number  of 
different  local  acts  in  force  in  the  metropolis  was 
about  250,  independent  of  public  general  acts,  ad- 
ministered by  not  less  than  300  different  bodies  ;  137 
of  these  had  returned  the  numbers  comprising  these 


GROWTH  325 

bodies,  and  they  amounted  to  4738  persons.  From 
the  other  boards  there  was  not  any  return  ;  but  taking 
the  same  average  for  them,  there  would  be  5710 
more  persons ;  so  that  upon  that  computation  the 
whole  metropolis  was  governed  by  no  less  than  10,448 
Commissioners.  Besides  these  there  were  the  follow- 
ing chartered  bodies :  Lincoln's  Inn,  Staple  Inn, 
New  Inn,  Gray's  Inn,  Furnival's  Inn,  Charterhouse. 
There  were  thirty  parishes  containing  880,000  in- 
habitants, and  assessed  to  real  property,  in  1843,  at 
£3,900,000,  which  might  probably  amount  to  much 
more  than  £4,000,000  at  the  present  time ;  con- 
sequently they  represented  nearly  one  half  of  the 
whole  value  of  the  metropolis.  On  examination  it 
appeared  that  these  parishes  were,  each  of  them, 
governed  either  wholly,  or  in  part,  by  Commissioners 
or  trustees,  who  were  self-elected,  or  elected  for  life, 
or  both,  and  therefore  in  no  degree  responsible  to  the 
ratepayers.  The  House  would  naturally  ask  why  all 
these  evils  had  continued  for  so  long  a  period  of 
time,  and  no  steps  been  taken  to  remedy  them. 
Take  the  case  of  St  Pancras,  one  of  the  greatest 
instances  of  abuses  tliat  had  ever  existed  in  a  civilised 
country.  In  the  year  1834  these  parties  came  to 
Parliament  through  their  vestry.  They  desired  their 
vestry  to  expend  money  for  the  purpose  of  remedying 
these  abuses.  The  Bill  was  thrown  out  in  the  second 
reading.  In  1837  a  similar  attempt  was  made  with 
similar  results,  but  at  a  heavy  cost  to  the  ratepayers. 
In  the  year  1851  they  were  more  fortunate.     He  pro- 


326  LONDON 

posed  a  Bill  which  was  referred  to  a  Select  Committee. 
It  passed  through  the  Committee  and  was  sent  up  to 
the  House  of  Lords,  where  it  was  thrown  out ;  and 
from  that  time  to  the  present  no  step  had  been  taken, 
and  no  step  would  be  taken,  to  remedy  these  abuses, 
because  they  spent  £4000  on  the  former  occasion, 
and  the  paving  boards,  over  which  they  had  no  control, 
spent  nearly  £3000  in  defeating  the  ratepayers,  which 
the  ratepayers  had  likewise  to  pay.  There  were  two 
other  boards  in  the  metropolis  which  had  great  powers 
of  taxation,  over  which  the  ratepayers  had  no  control. 
One  of  these  bodies  consisted  of  the  officers  appointed 
under  the  Metropolitan  Buildings  Act  of  1844,  and 
the  other  body  was  the  Commission  of  Sewers.  The 
officers  appointed  under  the  Metropolitan  Buildings 
Act  consisted  of  a  registrar  appointed  by  the  Chief 
Commissioner  of  Works,  at  a  salary  of  £1000 ;  an 
official  referee,  at  a  salary  of  £1000 ;  and  other 
referees  and  officers,  at  salaries  making  a  total  of 
£5510,  who  were  paid  partly  out  of  the  Consolidated 
Fund  and  partly  out  of  the  County  rate.  Besides 
these,  there  are  fifty-two  surveyors  appointed  by  the 
magistrates  in  quarter  sessions.  They  have  incomes 
varying  from  £200  to  £1600  per  annum,  derived  from 
fees,  and  the  total  amount  received  by  them  in  1853 
was  no  less  than  £24,304 ;  so  that  the  cost  of  this 
establishment  to  the  country  and  to  the  ratepayers 
was  just  £30,000  per  annum,  over  which  there  was 
no  control  whatever."  ^ 

1  Hansard's  Debates,  l6th  March  1855. 


GROWTH  327 

At  the  beginning  of  this  study  we  were  dealing 
with  the  conditions  of  a  city-state,  the  central  institu- 
tion of  both  Greek  and  Roman  civilisation,  to  which 
Ijondon  owed  its  origin.  At  the  end  we  are  dealing 
with  the  city-institution  of  London,  which  is  evolv  ed 
from  the  wreck  of  its  older  life,  and  which  has  to 
face  the  new  conceptions  of  city  life.  We  find  it  to 
be  a  place  of  great  needs,  of  stupendous  requirements, 
not  of  satisfied  desires.  It  looks  out  into  the  future, 
and  pauses  with  halting  hopes  when  it  realises  what 
that  future  needs.  On  the  banks  of  its  noble  river ; 
on  the  pavements  of  its  crowded  thoroughfares  ;  in 
the  homes  of  its  working  population  ;  in  the  breath- 
ing-spaces which  have  been  preserved  in  odd  corners 
of  its  territory ;  in  its  many  underground  structures 
for  drainage,  for  conveyance,  for  water  supply,  and 
for  means  of  telegraphic  communication ;  in  its 
centres  of  historic  associations  —  everywhere  the 
absence  of  the  master-mind  of  organisation  is  pain- 
fully apparent,  and  London  pauses  in  its  hopes  to 
ask  what  is  to  take  place  if  all  its  present  needs  are 
to  be  dealt  with  as  its  past  needs  have  been.  Royal 
Commissions  and  Select  Committees  have  made 
recommendations  over  and  over  again,  and  they 
remain  recommendations  still.  A  dreary  catalogue 
they  make — a  catalogue  from  which  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  draw  an  inspiration. 

Inspiration  does  not  readily  flow  from  such  sources, 
and  there  is  plenty  of  evidence  to  show  that  it  has  not 
flown.     This  is  best  illustrated  by  the  present  condi- 


328  LONDON 

tion  of  London  government.  It  apparently  needs  3997 
members  and  586  justices  to  govern  London.  The 
absurdity  of  such  a  state  of  things  is  obvious  when 
expressed  in  terms  of  numbers.  It  is  only  a  little 
less  obvious  when  count  is  taken  of  the  several 
administrative  bodies.  Their  titles  include  "Council," 
"  Board,"  "  Authority,"  "  Body,"  "  Board  of  Manage- 
ment," "  Committee,"  "  Commissioners,"  and  their 
jurisdiction  and  duties  are  as  varied  and  intermingled 
as  well  could  be.  London  is  a  county  differing  widely 
in  every  respect  from  all  other  counties.  Its  council 
administers  all  the  duties  transferred  from  the  justices 
in  1888,  and  many  municipal  matters  besides,  and  it 
is  the  central  governing  authority  of  London.  It 
does  not,  however,  administer  all  central  matters. 
It  shares  this  with  the  ancient  city  of  London,  with 
statutory  bodies  created  before  1888,  and  with  statu- 
tory bodies  created  after  1888.  The  city  of  London 
Corporation  is  market  authority,  except  in  one  or  two 
cases,  as  Covent  Garden,  in  private  possession  of  the 
Duke  of  Bedford,  and  some  local  markets ;  it  is  also 
sanitary  authority  for  the  Thames.  The  Asylums 
Board  is  the  central  poor-law  authority  and  the 
health  authority  for  infectious  sick ;  the  Water  Board 
manages  the  water  supply ;  the  Port  Authority  ad- 
ministers the  docks  and  the  port ;  the  Commissioner 
of  Police  controls  the  police  force  and  has  other  duties 
which  elsewhere  are  administered  by  municipal  author- 
ities ;  two  river  conservancies  are  responsible  for  the 
Thames  and  the  Lea  respectively ;  the  Central  Un- 


GROWTH  329 

employed  Body  deals  with  unemployment  in  London  ; 
the  l^ocal  Pension  Committee  and  the  Insurance 
Committee  deal  with  their  respective  duties.  Under- 
neath all  this  central  government  thus  unaccountably 
divided  there  are  local  governments — twenty-eight 
Borough  Councils  different  from  all  other  such 
councils  in  the  kingdom,  thirty-one  Boards  of 
Guardians,  six  Boards  of  Management  for  poor-law 
schools  and  poor-law  sick,  besides  other  specially 
appointed  Committees.  The  whole  makes  up  a  con- 
glomerate which  cannot  be  styled  local  government, 
cannot  be  considered  as  representative  government  in 
any  sense.  There  are  so  many  ill-defined  connections 
between  the  citizen  and  his  representative  that  there 
ceases  to  be  any  effective  connection  at  all.  And 
London,  the  capital  of  the  empire,  with  a  glorious 
history,  is  under  the  heels  of  many  interests,  many 
cliques  and  parties,  which  play  one  against  the  other 
and  never  play  for  the  community. 

I  have  called  early  Victorian  London  a  domestic 
city  full  of  scenes  which  had  not  disappeared  from 
its  midst  until  the  great  era  of  building  which  began 
in  1860.^  It  is  no  use,  however,  dwelling  upon  this 
aspect  of  modern  London.  It  is  not  the  wholly  true 
aspect.  There  are  thousands  of  home-dwellers  in 
London,  and  there  will  always  be  such.  But  these  do 
not  count  for  much.  They  are  the  people  neglected 
as  not  incidental  to  the  real  situation.  That  which 
really  matters  is  its  position  as  capital  city  of  the 
1  In  my  London  1837-1897,  p.  17. 


330  LONDON 

Empire,  the  centre  of  legislation  for  the  nation,  the 
centre  of  judicial  appeal  for  the  entire  Empire.  Very 
few  Londoners  realise  what  this  last  feature  represents 
in  empire  government ;  very  few  realise  that  in  the 
daily  law  reports  of  the  Times  they  may  see  appeals 
from  Canada,  South  Africa,  or  Australia,  cases  remitted 
from  the  law  courts  of  India  to  the  House  of  Lords 
in  London.  On  25th  January  1912  there  was  an 
appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  Judicial  Com- 
missioner of  Upper  Burma  reversing  a  decree  of  the 
district  court  of  Magwe,  in  the  matter  of  Maung 
Aung  Myat,  a  Twinzayo  married  to  Mi  Shive  ]\Ia. 
Not  only  are  these  names  of  strange  sound  to  the 
ears  of  Londoners,  but  the  proceedings  are  stranger 
still.  Lord  JNIacnaghten  delivered  their  Lordships' 
judgment,  and  declared  strange  laws  in  support  of  it : 
that  polygamy  in  Burma  was  lawful,  that  it  was  not 
unlawful  to  marry  the  sister  of  a  living  wife,  and  that 
marriage  with  a  deceased  wife's  sister  was  not  only 
proper  but  laudable ;  that  the  marriage  ceremony 
included  many  quaint  customs,  including  "  eating  out 
of  the  same  pot."  After  quoting  text-books  on 
Buddhist  law,  their  Lordships  decided  to  advise  his 
Majesty  that  the  appeal  should  be  dismissed.^  The 
whole  case  is  imperial  in  the  highest  sense.  English 
justice  is  believed  in  and  its  decisions  willingly  obeyed 
by  native  races.  English  judges  deal  not  only  with 
English  law  but  with  native  law,  and  London  is 
the  centre  from  which  the  decisions  proceed.     They 

1   Times,  26th  January  1912. 


GROWTH  331 

proceed  to  the  homes  of  people  unaccustomed  to  city 
hfe,  to  whom  western  civihsation  is  unknown,  and 
they  govern  these  hves.  They  govern  them  in  the 
most  important  matters — family  life,  communal  life, 
even  temple  ritual.  I^ondon  in  this  respect  differs 
from  every  other  capital  city  in  Europe,  and  the 
difference  represents  its  imperial  position,  a  position 
which  it  has  attained  more  by  reason  of  its  ancient 
powers,  wisely  consolidated  and  utilised,  than  by  the 
endowment  of  powers  by  an  external  sovereign.  She 
comes  to  her  new  imperial  position  silently  and  almost 
unrecognised  by  record  or  by  history. 

We  have  thus  come  back,  through  the  blackness 
just  depicted,  to  London  as  an  empire  city.  Foe's 
wonderful  phrase,  "  The  grandeur  that  was  Rome," 
has  been  translated  for  us  in  INIr  Stobart's  impressive 
book.  "  The  greatness  that  was  London  "  belongs  to 
its  history,  and  that  greatness  still  exists  in  spite  of 
the  shame  of  the  Tudors  and  of  the  Stuarts,  and  the 
shame  of  the  Victorians  which  has  outshamed  both 
Tudors  and  Stuarts/ 

To  change  all  this  will  include  the  rebuilding 
of  London.  Berlin  has  accomplished  such  a  task, 
and  made  itself  supremely  ugly  in  the  doing.  Paris 
has  done  it  without  quite  making  itself  beautiful. 
London  can  do  it,  and  make  itself  beautiful  in  the 
doing.  Three  of  the  smallest  fragments  of  history 
which   have   been   already  noted  and   may  now  be 

^  I  have  dealt  with  Victorian  London  in  my  little  book  published 
in  the  Victorian  Era  Series  (1898). 


332  LONDON 

recalled  will  suffice  to  teach  the  way.  James  I.'s 
spoken  wish  for  a  rebuilding  which  would  result  in 
a  beautiful  city;  Charles  I  I.'s  royal  command  to 
proceed  at  once  with  the  task  presented  by  the 
genius  of  Wren ;  Colonel  Birch's  proposal  before 
Parliament, — these  combine  in  themselves  the  neces- 
sary principles  which  should  govern  the  making  of 
the  future  London. 

There  are  cities  which  do  not  appeal  to  one. 
There  are  those  which  appeal  to  every  fibre  of 
one's  nature.  London  is  of  this  latter  class.  In 
spite  of  its  many  deflections  from  the  ideal  of  con- 
tinuous history,  its  record  is  one  long  catalogue  of 
praise  from  visitors,  inhabitants,  statesmen,  poets, 
painters,  and  artists.  The  Romans  who  looked  to 
it  for  defence  stayed  in  it  for  "love  of  the  place." 
At  every  stage  of  its  history  where  such  expressions 
are  possible  they  have  been  made,  and  when  the 
change  from  medifevalism  to  modernism  was  accom- 
plished there  is  not  a  single  foreign  traveller  who, 
if  he  recorded  or  criticised  details,  did  not  also 
proclaim  his  feeling  for  London.  London  produces 
a  feeling,  stands  for  a  soul  community,  compels  people, 
citizens  and  visitors  alike,  to  a  recognition  of  qualities 
and  powers  which  nothing  but  its  history  can  explain. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  GREATNESS  THAT  IS  LONDON 

I  HAVE  now  finished  the  story  of  London's  con- 
tinuity in  Enghsh  history  from  a  great  position  in 
Roman  history.  I  have  shown  that  it  is  continuity 
of  historical  influences,  not  a  mere  survival  of  custom 
and  usage.  I  have  shown  when  and  how  it  lapsed 
and  when  and  how  it  revived,  and  have  traced  the  last 
echo  of  that  continuity  to  modern  days  in  the  march 
of  the  citizen  army  on  its  way  to  the  battlefields 
of  South  Africa.  I  have  shown  that  on  the  great 
emergency  London  has  answered  to  the  call  on  her 
historical  influence.  There  is  no  city  in  Europe 
which  has  preserved  its  historical  continuity  so  faith- 
fully as  London  has  preserved  hers — not  Lyons, 
Trier,  Nimes,  Aries,  Turin,  not  Paris  or  even  Rome 
herself.  If  these  are  continuous  by  actual  occupa- 
tion ;  if  they  show  remains  of  the  forum,  the  bath, 
the  theatre,  or  even  the  temple ;  they  show  no 
continuity  of  historical  influences  —  they  are  not 
constitutionally  continuous.  They  may  possess  here 
and  there  a  municipal  rite,  a  social  custom,  but  they 
never  reveal  their  original  position  as  a  city-state  of 
the    Roman    Empire.      Their    medieeval    history   is 

333 


334  LONDON 

wholly  municipal  and  never  contributory  to  the 
formation  or  the  government  of  the  state.  This,  on 
the  contrary,  is  what  London  reveals  throughout  the 
ages,  the  something  more  which  is  always  present. 
Her  prominence  as  a  city-state  with  more  power 
and  influence  than  a  municipal  town  is  shown  from 
time  to  time,  and  the  silence  between  the  several 
manifestations  is  all  the  more  eloquent  because  of 
the  expression  which  comes  out  so  strongly  and 
decisively  when  it  is  called  forth  by  events.  London 
is  the  only  example  of  a  city-state  in  modern  history 
exercising  her  state  powers  as  strongly  as  her  civic 
powers,  in  connection  with  the  personal  sovereignty 
of  early  English  and  mediaeval  times,  in  connection 
with  Parliament  in  modern  times,  and  in  connection 
with  military  and  other  functions  at  all  times.  The 
essential  difference  between  London  and  other  cities 
beginning  in  the  Roman  Empire,  lies  in  the  fact  that 
London  has  acted  the  part  of  city-state  throughout, 
in  modern  as  in  ancient  days.  No  other  city  has 
played  this  part.  It  was  revolutionary  Paris  in  a 
sea  of  blood  which  helped  to  form  the  modern  state 
of  France ;  but  it  is  constitutional  London  acting 
continuously  and  not  tumultuously  which  has  per- 
formed this  service  for  modern  England.  A  great 
city  in  two  empires,  the  Roman  and  the  British,  she 
stands  now  in  front  of  world  changes  and  develop- 
ments in  which  the  greatness  that  is  London  must  be 
called  upon  to  take  its  part. 

What,  then,  are  the  special  problems  of  modern 


THE   GREATNESS   THAT    IS   LONDON   335 

times,  problems  unknown  to  the  niedituvalist,  only 
just  beginning  to  be  known  to  ourselves,  problems 
which  affect  the  history  of  cities,  and  of  London  first 
and  foremost  amongst  cities  ?  They  must  be  con- 
sidered from  two  points  of  view.  The  problem  of 
empire  comes  first — what  is  the  empire  of  the 
future  in  which  I^ondon  will  find  a  place  ?  The 
problem  of  the  city  in  relation  to  empire  comes 
second — what  will  be  the  position  of  London  in 
this  new  order  of  things  ?  This  is  not  the  place 
to  deal  fully  with  a  subject  so  full  of  complexity 
and  with  such  a  vast  outlook,  but  it  is  necessary 
to  state  the  outlines  of  the  case  because  it  is  only 
within  these  outlines  that  we  finally  bring  ourselves 
to  understand  what  the  future  position  of  London 
may  be. 

The  concentration  of  human  activities  and  the 
mastery  of  civilisation  over  the  productions  of  the 
whole  world  is  the  note  of  the  future.  Its  first 
expression  will  be  the  peace  of  Europe,  and  this  will 
bring  into  existence  an  empire  of  the  West  founded 
not  on  conquest  but  on  economic  justice.  The  peace 
of  the  world  will  be  the  policy  of  the  world.  Civili- 
sation is  moving  inevitably  in  this  direction.  For 
the  first  time  in  the  world's  history  man  has  become 
conscious  of  the  whole  world's  existence,  and  becom- 
ing conscious  he  is  gradually  grasping  at  the  power 
which  lies  at  his  feet.  The  produce  of  the  whole 
world  at  its  best  centres  for  each  production  is  now 
being  commanded  by  methods  peculiarly  foolish  and 


336  LONDON 

uneconomical.  Capital  has  risen  to  the  knowledge 
of  this,  and  has  changed  its  outlook.  It  has  ceased 
to  be  nationalised  and  become  cosmopolitan.  Labour 
will  soon  follow  suit,  and,  instead  of  fighting  capital 
on  the  old  lines,  will  learn  to  assist  it  on  the  new,  and 
will  then  in  turn  become  cosmopolitan.  It  will  assume 
its  right  relationship  to  capital,  and  capital  will  corre- 
spondingly answer.  The  world  then  will  become  a 
reality  to  its  civilised  inhabitants  principally,  to  its 
backward  races  in  a  less  degree.  It  will  be  governed 
not  in  territorial  states  by  kings  and  ministers  of 
state,  but  by  kings  of  capital  and  kings  of  labour  in 
combination,  and  all  the  glories  that  the  world 
possesses,  the  glories  of  its  past  history,  as  of  its 
natural  features  and  beauties,  will  be  at  the  disposal 
of  its  inhabitants.  This  is  not  mere  idealism.  The 
consolidation  of  the  civilised  world  is  a  greater  thing 
than  the  building  up  of  the  nationalities  of  ancient 
political  states,  and  it  must  come ;  and  with  it  will 
come  the  application  of  civilised  methods  to  bring 
about  the  happiness  of  all  within  the  fold.  The 
science  of  administration  as  well  as  natural  science 
will  place  at  the  disposal  of  this  civilisation  the  food 
products  and  the  industrial  products  grown  or  manu- 
factured wherever  it  is  best  for  them,  and  the  entire 
world  will  be  at  the  command  of  man's  highest  needs. 
The  Suez  Canal,  the  Panama  Canal,  the  Euphrates 
Valley  railway,  the  East  African  railway,  are  the 
material  signs  of  this.  Livingstone  and  Stanley, 
Cecil    Rhodes  and  General  Botha,  are  the  pioneers 


THE    GREATNESS    THAT   IS    LONDON   337 

of  it.  The  Government  assistance  to  grow  cotton 
in  Africa  is  the  first  economic  efFort  towards  it. 
Political  thought  and  literature  are  beginning  to  take 
note  of  it  in  terms  which,  if  hardly  commensurate 
with  the  true  position,  are  beginning  to  tell  in  the 
same  direction.  All  these  factors  in  combination 
point  towards  one  goal,  one  ideal,  and  human  thought 
thus  moved  will  end  in  human  action.  The  govern- 
ing power  will  have  to  deal  with  some  ugly  problems 
before  it  settles  down  to  its  peace.  Among  these 
will  be  the  problem  of  race.  The  relationship  of  the 
dominant  white  race,  with  its  magnificent  endowment 
of  the  scientific  spirit,  to  the  yellow  race  with  its 
capacity  for  reaping  the  full  benefits  of  the  white 
man's  science,  and  to  the  black  race  with  its 
intellectual  qualifications  far  in  the  regions  of  the 
unknown — these  are  the  great  problems  of  the  future 
to  take  the  place  of  the  problem  of  nationality  in 
the  past. 

The  political  result  will  be  the  formation  of  a  new 
world  empire  of  the  West,  and  inevitably  the  mind 
turns  back  to  the  greatest  political  effort  ever  made 
by  man,  the  ancient  world  empire  of  Rome.  Com- 
parative studies  have  already  begun,  and  these  will 
continue  in  the  light  of  actual  events.  They  will 
show  that  no  slavish  copying  of  details  will  be 
possible,  and  that  the  only  comparison  will  be  in 
the  spirit.  A  governing  power  to  express  the  will 
of  loosely   knit   self-governing   units   with   common 

economic  rules  is  the  ideal  of  the  future,  taking  all 

22 


338  LONDON 

it  can  from  the  tremendous  lesson  of  the  rise  and  fall 
of  Rome. 

The  highest  type  of  the  self-governing  unit  will  be 
the  city  not  the  nation.  We  have  been  dealing  with 
the  problem  of  historical  continuity  in  the  life  of 
London  and  its  great  constructive  force ;  and  now 
that  we  have  to  touch  upon  these  new  problems, 
with  their  foundations  built  on  a  new  ideal  altogether, 
an  ideal  which  travels  into  quite  new  interests,  new 
economic  conceptions,  new  political  results,  it  may 
appear  that  historical  forces  will  cease  to  operate. 
This  cannot  be ;  and  although  it  may  be  difficult 
after  the  divergence  of  the  old  channels  to  re- 
establish the  historical  note  as  the  dominant  note, 
it  would  be  still  more  difficult  to  strike  it  out 
altogether.  History  is  a  living  force  not  a  dead 
record.  And  the  movement  of  to-day  is  in  the 
direction  of  historical  influence.  State  administration 
has  been  the  rule  since  the  downfall  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  City  administration  is  going  to  be  the  rule 
in  the  future.  Cities  which  have  only  had  a  municipal 
existence  are  going  by  their  intermunicipal  connec- 
tions to  have  a  world  existence,  by  which  empires 
and  races,  monarchs  and  statesmen,  must  in  the  future 
be  guided.  Citizens  in  the  future  will  not  be  driven 
or  herded  into  war,  nor  into  any  other  of  the  evils  of 
outworn  feudalism  and  medic^valism.  They  will  have 
their  say,  and  it  will  be  a  powerful  say.  They  will 
surely  echo  back  the  great  cry  of  Virgil  when  he 
defined  the   calamity  of  war  as   the  bringing  about 


i 


THE  GREATNESS  THAT  IS  LONDON  ;3.3D 

of  the  great   crime   of  city  breaking  covenant  with 

sister  city — 

"  Vicina3  ruptis  inter  se  legibus  iirbes 
Anna  ferunt.""  ^ 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  mediaeval  state 
was  unconscious  of  the  citizen  in  the  great  bulk  of  his 
requirements.  The  modern  state  is  unconscious  in  a 
different  sense,  purposely  unconscious  of  the  great 
bulk  of  requirements  of  the  citizen.  In  particular 
the  state  has  not  recognised  the  rise  of  the  city  and 
of  citizenship  in  the  new  civilisation  which  is  steadily 
enveloping  the  western  world.  This,  unfortunately, 
means  that  the  great  community  of  London,  which 
has  massed  together  interests  of  gigantic  proportions, 
which  answers  to  modern  civilisation  for  much  which 
civilisation  is  striving  to  represent,  stands  unrecog- 
nised. As  Arthur  Symons  so  finely  puts  it,  "  Cities 
are  like  people,  with  souls  and  temperaments  of  their 
own,"  and  it  is  not  good  for  the  state  to  ignore  the 
forces  within  its  reach  which  are  ripening  into 
prominence. 

The  great  ideal  of  the  world  empire  of  peace  within 
its  boundaries  w^hich  Virgil  saw  so  clearly  must  be 
repeated  to  answer  the  needs  of  modern  civilisation. 
The  Roman  world  was  the  whole  of  the  then  civilisa- 
tion. The  whole  of  modern  civilisation  will  be  the 
new  world  empire.  It  will  be  governed  as  Rome 
was  governed,  through  its  cities.  The  sovereignty  of 
it  will  be  the  will  of  the  people.     The  enemy  of  it 

1   Georgics,  i.  510. 


340  LONDON 

will  be  the  uncivilised  races,  yellow  and  black,  on  its 
outskirts.  The  struggle  will  decide  whether  the  new 
civilisation,  founded  on  the  lines  of  the  Roman 
civilisation  which  Virgil  has  pictured  for  us,  will  re- 
main or  will  crumble  beneath  the  weight  of  its  oppo- 
nents. The  lesson  of  Rome  thus  repeated  at  every 
stage  should  lead  to  something  better  than  decline  | 
and  fall.  The  lesson  will  be  learned  not  from  the  ^ 
doings  of  emperors  but  from  the  statesmanship  of 
Rome.  The  greatest  instance  of  this,  the  greatest 
effort  at  empire-building  in  all  history,  is  the  parcel- 
ling out  of  North  Africa  among  newly  founded 
city-states.  We  can  even  at  this  distance  of  time 
measure  the  magnificence  of  this  act,  not  so  much 
in  the  material  remains  of  that  magnificence  as  in 
the  overwhelming  evidence  of  its  success.  Rome 
then  taught  mankind  what  a  world  empire  could  be 
made  and  how  it  could  be  made.  Europe,  it  is  true, 
did  not  learn  the  lesson,  and  has  taken  all  the  inter- 
vening centuries  to  work  out  its  own  failure.  But  it 
is  learning  it  now,  and  the  progress  will  be  more 
rapid  than  is  expected. 

It  is  perhaps  too  early  to  gauge  the  full  extent 
and  force  of  the  new  position,  but  this  is  the  place 
to  note  that  just  as  it  is  being,  or  has  been,  dis- 
covered that  the  future  centres  of  man's  social  and 
cultured  life  lie  in  the  cities,  the  governing  authorities 
of  two  great  cities,  and  those  two  cities  no  other  than 
I^ondon  and  Paris,  began  a  series  of  exchange  visits, 
which    have   since   been   extended   to   London   and 


THE   GREATNESS   THAT    IS   T.ONDON  841 

Berlin,  I^ondon  and  Vienna,  London  and  Stockholm, 
and,  latest  of  all,  the  intermunicipal  proposals  of  the 
American  cities.  There  has  been  produced  there- 
from a  sort  of  intermunicipal  conception  of  things 
which  has  hitherto  not  found  a  place  among  the 
dominant  forces  of  modern  civilisation.  It  is  not  too 
much  to  say  that  the  juxtaposition  of  theory  and 
practice  thus  brought  about  is  a  remarkable  fact 
which  cannot  be  ignored.  Communities  of  men  are 
governed,  as  individuals  are  governed,  by  all  sorts 
of  influences  which,  working  silently  and  unseen, 
produce  results  which  are  observable  for  the  most 
part  only  when  they  have  passed  into  history  and 
have  been  subjected  to  the  analysis  of  scientific 
inquiry.  But  the  obvious  significance  of  the  present 
position  is  not  a  matter  of  history ;  it  is  part  of  the 
work  of  the  present  day.  It  is  not  mere  accident 
that  this  psychological  moment  stands  revealed  so 
plainly.  It  is  not  mere  accident  that  men  engaged 
in  the  practical  affairs  of  life  find  themselves  for  the 
moment  standing  aside,  and  discovering  for  them- 
selves that  at  the  back  of  municipal  interchange  of 
thought  lies  a  whole  realm  of  usefulness  which  has 
hitherto  not  been  opened  up  to  modern  municipal 
ideas.  It  was  partly  recognised  by  the  ancient  Greek 
and  Roman  municipalities ;  it  was  faintly  recognised 
by  mediaeval  cities  and  towns.  But  if  it  becomes  a 
concept  of  the  modern  system  of  governance,  it  is 
destined  to  assume  far  larger  proportions  than  was 
possible  to  the  older  municipalities.     At  the  most, 


342  LONDON 

the  older  idea  of  municipal  interrelationship  was 
strictly  limited.  The  leagues  of  the  Greek  cities 
were  limited  not  only  in  geography,  but  in  duration. 
The  affiliation  of  the  daughter  cities  of  ancient  Rome 
was  marred  by  the  overwhelming  greatness  of  the 
mother  city.  The  five  burghs  of  Scotland,  the  league 
of  the  Danish  towns  of  England,  and  the  mediseval 
league  of  the  Cinque  Ports  only  count  for  a  special 
method  of  meeting  special  and  local  requirements. 
London  and  her  sister  capitals,  however,  have  to- 
gether begun  an  entirely  new  phase.  They  have 
discovered  in  the  idiosyncrasies  of  each  other  food 
for  reflection  and  study,  while  in  the  common  ground 
occupied  by  all  cities  they  have  found  an  extension 
of  municipal  possibilities  whose  area  and  rate  of 
development  are  scarcely  measurable — in  a  word, 
they  have  discovered  that  municipal  problems  have 
to  do  with  people's  needs  and  rights,  with  some 
of  the  most  important  phases  of  modern  civilisation, 
and  that  these  may,  nay  must,  be  considered  apart 
from  the  boundaries  of  nations,  and  apart  from  the 
conflict  of  national  interests.  Such  a  discovery  does 
not  rest  even  at  this  important  stage,  for  it  is  obvious 
that  the  breakdown  of  international  ignorance  and 
jealousy  must  follow  the  establishment  of  inter- 
municipal  aims  and  successes,  and  that  in  this  way 
the  surest  path  to  the  peace  of  civilised  humanity  has 
been  laid  down.  This  is  the  message  which  comes  to 
us  from  a  consideration  of  past  conditions  in  relation 
to  modern  requirements.     That  it  is  a  great  and  in- 


THE    GREATNESS    THAT    IS    LONDON   34.*} 

spiring  message  is,  I  think,  self-evident.  That  it  flows 
from  the  unique  history  of  T^ondon  above  all  the  cities 
of  Pjurope  is  due  to  the  newly  discovered  facts  in  that 
history  which  have  now  been  marshalled  into  some- 
thing like  order  for  those  who  will  profit  by  them. 

If  we  are  face  to  face  with  the  supremely  important 
fact  that  city  life  is  going  to  be  the  life  of  the  future, 
as  it  was  the  life  of  ancient  Greece  and  ancient  Rome, 
it  means  city  expansion  and  a  means  of  knitting 
country  life  into  the  new  developments.  The  Domes- 
day boroughs,  which  were  the  centre  of  the  old  shire- 
men's  life,  will  again  become  the  model  of  future 
national  life,  if  the  country  is  wise  enough  to  read  the 
lessons  of  history  aright,  wise  enough  to  insist  upon 
reform  founded  upon  principles.  Jealousy  of  the 
cities  will  be  got  rid  of.  The  greatness  and  special 
characteristics  of  London  will  be  understood  and 
then  appreciated — must  be  understood  in  order  to  be 
appreciated.  The  expansion  of  Glasgow,  Manchester, 
Liverpool,  and  other  expanding  cities  will  be  recog- 
nised and  assisted.  But  expansion  in  the  new  sense 
w^ill  be  totally  unlike  the  halting,  unregulated  expan- 
sion of  the  past.  Government  from  the  city  and  by 
the  city  will  be  the  note  of  the  future,  and  it  will 
include  stretches  of  territory  controlled  by  the  city 
in  obedience  to  the  economic  and  industrial  require- 
ments of  areas  formed  by  these  requirements.  The 
curious  and  uninteresting  policy  of  forming  series  of 
so-called  boroughs  instead  of  one  great  city  govern- 
ment will  give  way  to  the  larger  ideal  by  which  the 


344  LONDON 

country  will  be  governed  not  by  racial  or  national 
ideals  but  by  economic  realities,  and  these  will  result  in 
the  formation  of  cities  with  boundaries  which  include 
rural  as  well  as  urban  territory,  and  which  stretch 
across  the  whole  country,  boundary  meeting  boundary. 
The  functions  of  city  government  will  be  extended, 
in  order  to  meet  the  expansion  of  city  life.  The 
beauty  of  towns,  such  a  glory  of  the  mediaeval 
borough,  will  again  be  insisted  upon  as  a  duty  which 
citizens  owe  to  the  natural  beauties  they  destroy. 
Ugliness  is  a  sin,  and  will  be  proclaimed  so.  Some  of 
the  old  conceptions  of  Greek  cities,  and  of  Rome  and 
Italian  cities,  will  arise  in  their  modern  form,  and  we 
shall  find  the  noble  words  of  Lucian  being  suitably 
applied  to  modern  conditions :  "  A  city  in  our  con- 
ception is  not  the  buildings — walls,  temples,  docks, 
and  so  forth ;  these  are  no  more  than  the  local 
habitation  that  provides  the  members  of  the  com- 
munity with  shelter  and  safety :  it  is  in  the  citizens 
that  we  find  the  root  of  the  matter ;  they  it  is  that 
replenish  and  organise  and  achieve  and  guard,  cor- 
responding in  the  city  to  the  soul  in  man.  Holding 
this  view  we  are  not  indifferent,  as  you  see,  to  our 
city's  body ;  that  we  adorn  with  all  the  beauty  we 
can  impart  to  it ;  it  is  provided  with  internal  buildings 
and  fenced  as  securely  as  may  be  with  external  walls. 
But  our  first,  our  engrossing  preoccupation,  is  to  make 
our   citizens  noble  of  spirit   and   strong   of  body."^ 

1   Lucian,  Anachmsis.     This  is  Fowler's  fine  translation,  iii.   199- 
Compare  Thueydides,  lib.  ii.,  cap,  xxxviii. 


THE   GREATNESS   THAT    IS   LONDON  345 

One  way  of  carrying  this  into  effect  almost  touches 
upon  the  dechired  aspirations  of  modern  thought. 
Lucian  says  of  Athens :  "  The  city  pays  for  the 
admission  of  citizens  to  the  theatre,  where  the  con- 
templation of  ancient  heroes  and  villains  in  tragedy 
and  comedy  has  its  educational  effect  of  warning  and 
encouragement."  Tn  a  word,  there  will  be  added  to 
the  ordinary  duties  of  municipalities  the  idealism  of 
city  life,  in  order  to  make  it  worthy  of  the  civilisation 
which  in  its  new  developments  is  only  just  beginning 
to  dawn  upon  the  world. 

This  double  heritage  involves  a  double  duty.  Such 
a  heritage  is  worth  preserving  for  local  government 
institutions  in  the  future — local  institutions  are  worth 
preserving  in  order  to  have  such  a  heritage  properly 
administered.  When  once  the  citizen  of  the  future 
has  comprehended  what  his  life  is  to  be  he  will  expect 
great  things  of  it.  Municipal  wardrobes  and  tinsel 
will  have  to  give  way  to  municipal  work.  INIunicipal 
doubts  and  fears  will  have  to  give  way  to  municipal 
ideals  and  aspirations.  The  men  and  women  of  London 
will  learn  from  the  men  and  women  of  Paris,  Vienna, 
Berlin,  Stockholm,  and  others  of  her  sister  capital 
cities ;  the  men  and  women  of  Birmingham,  Liver- 
pool, Glasgow,  and  their  lesser  brethren  will  learn 
from  Marseilles,  Hamburg,  Cologne,  Buda-Pesth,  and 
the  others  of  like  status.  Municipalism  will  tread 
lightly  over  national  boundaries,  and  cities  will  once 
more  become  a  power  in  the  land. 

We  now  come  to  the  question  of  London's  place 


346  LONDON 

in  the  new  order  of  things.  It  is  singular  that  a 
great  historian  of  Roman  Britain,  Dr  Haverfield, 
should  have  declared  that  it  will  have  no  place ; 
whereas  all  my  own  conclusions,  drawn  from  London 
in  its  continuity  from  the  Roman  city-state,  are 
diametrically  opposed  to  those  of  Dr  Haverfield. 
"  Roman  London,"  he  says,  "  was  the  child  of  those 
forces  of  Nature  which  we  sum  up  in  the  word 
geography,  and  it  was  also  their  victim.  To  their 
great  power  the  Roman  city  owed  its  rise,  its  three 
and  a  half  centuries  of  prosperity,  and  its  fall." 
Dr  Haverfield  cannot  get  over  the  hundred  years 
during  which  history  was  silent,  and  which  are  repre- 
sented by  tradition  and  by  survival ;  and  then  he 
adds  that  to  these  forces  of  Nature  "  London  owed 
its  second  rise  as  an  English  city  and  the  long  life 
which  has  now  lasted  a  thousand  years.  But  to-day 
the  signs  are  plain  that  English  London  is  no  more 
immortal  than  its  Roman  predecessor.  The  discovery 
of  the  steam  engine,  the  opening  of  the  Atlantic 
to  ocean-borne  traffic,  the  opening  of  the  English 
mineral  resources  to  commerce,  have  shifted  the 
geographical  centre  of  our  island  from  the  south- 
east coast  and  the  Thames  to  the  west  and  the  north. 
Already,  as  students  of  commercial  and  industrial  life 
know,  the  metropolis  has  ceased  to  represent  the  most 
active  and  prosperous  and  thickly  populated  part  of 
England.  Indeed,  there  yawns  to-day  between  London 
and  the  north  a  gulf  that  is  almost  a  national  danger. 
London    may,  I   suppose,   remain,  like   the   political 


THE    CxRRATNESS    THAT    IS    LONDON  347 

centres  of  some  other  European  states,  the  official  and 
administrative  capital,  and  it'  it  loses  its  pre-eminence 
its  fall  will  be  slow :  the  death- throes  of  great  cities 
last  through  many  centuries.  But  someone  will 
some  day  shift  the  English  capital  northwards,  and 
the  government  will  follow  the  London  newpapers, 
which  have  already  begun  to  open  their  offices  in 
Manchester."  This  is  a  long  quotation,  but  it  is  the 
first  dictum  of  its  kind  that  has  been  pronounced. 
It  is  founded  upon  the  historical  conception  of  London 
in  juxtaposition  with  the  industrial  conditions  of 
modern  times — a  sufficiently  powerful  combination 
to  command  the  closest  attention. 

Dr  Haverfield's  historical  conception  nuist,  in  face 
of  the  evidence  brought  together  in  this  book, 
appear  to  be  singularly  narrow.  My  maximum  and 
his  minimum  nowhere  meet  on  the  historical  plane. 
Suppose  by  the  mere  force  of  reiterated  argument 
the  historian  cuts  off  Roman  from  Saxon  I^ondon, 
what  does  he  obtain  ?  Not  an  English  city  of  the 
type  of  York,  Colchester,  Winchester,  Exeter,  Lin- 
coln, and  the  rest  of  the  occupied  Roman  cities  with 
their  manorial  and  communal  land  systems ;  not  an 
English  city  of  native  growth  from  the  foundation, 
of  the  type  presented  by  Nottingham,  Southampton, 
Malmesbury,  Doncaster,  and  others.  He  would 
get  an  incongruous  thing,  not  to  be  explained  or 
accounted  for  by  any  analogy,  any  parallel  circum- 
stances, which  can  be  sought  for  in  later  history, 
tradition,  or  institutional  survivals.     London  stands 


348  LONDON 

unique  in  British  history,  and  it  is  from  this  position 
that  her  history  has  to  be  investigated  and  brought 
into  proper  relationship  with  the  state  and  with  other 
institutions.  The  greatness  of  London  has  not  been 
dimmed,  because  it  does  not  depend  upon  one  or 
a  dozen  factors.  Its  whole  history  shows  it  to  be 
a  living  organism  of  extraordinary  power  at  every 
stage  of  its  exhausting  life.  Its  magnificent  develop- 
ment has  never  been  at  the  bidding  of  outside  forces. 
Neither  monarch  nor  noble  has  had  a  hand  in  its 
making.  It  has  made  itself,  and  in  the  pages  in 
which  endeavour  has  been  made  to  set  out  the  various 
stages  of  its  evolution  the  point  has  over  and  over 
again  been  made. 

If  Dr  Haverfield's  retrospect  seems  wrong,  so  does 
his  prospect.  He  has  not  fully  grasped  the  economic 
and  industrial  position.  London  is  the  greatest 
manufacturing  city  in  the  kingdom,  though  evidence 
of  it  is  submerged  in  all  the  other  sides  of  its  life. 
It  extends  far  outside  its  formal  boundaries  from  the 
Thames  to  the  sea  border.  Dover,  Southampton, 
and  Harwich  are  but  outports  of  London.  And  it 
is  only  when  the  position  of  London  in  this  extended 
sense  is  grasped  and  understood  that  its  future  as  a 
city-institution  can  be  gauged. 

The  commercialism  that  was  Tudor  London  has 
developed  into  the  world-London  as  one  of  the  great 
human  life-centres.  Here,  if  anywhere,  London  will 
refound  itself  as  one  of  the  city-states  of  modern 
civilisation  which  are  going  to  command  these  opera- 


THE    GREATNESS    THAT    IS   LONDON  349 

tions — not  empires  and  nations,  but  cities.  The 
greatness  that  was  London  is  ready  to  be  handed 
on  to  serve  its  new  developments,  and  the  conscious 
note  of  continuity  which  has  come  so  strongly 
from  the  past  will  still  be  effective.  As  in  the 
past,  so  in  the  future,  the  greatness  that  is  London 
will  be  responded  to  by  the  great.  The  unknown 
hero  of  a.d.  61  ;  the  unnamed  of  the  hundred 
years  ;  the  sub-reguU  of  the  seventh  century  ;  /Elfred 
in  the  ninth  century ;  Eadmund,  Cnut,  and  Harold 
Godwinsson  of  the  eleventh  century  ;  Ansgar  the 
Sheriff;  the  citizen  statesman  who  led  Plantagenet 
London  ;  the  men  of  Tudor  and  Stuart  times  ;  the 
lord  mayors  who  forced  the  issues  of  Georgian  I^ondon 
and  invoked  the  inspired  praise  of  Chatham — all 
these  were  the  great  individuals  answering  the  calls 
of  London's  greatness.  The  answering  was  always 
equal  to  the  occasion,  and  when  historically  we  look 
back  upon  men  and  institution,  upon  city  and  citizen, 
we  find  London  acting  faithfully  both  to  its  past 
and  its  then  future.  The  nation  in  putting  its  hand 
upon  London  was  helped  towards  its  own  develop- 
ment ;  and  when  the  great  moment  again  arrives  for 
cities  to  be  fighting  the  issues  that  lie  before  them, 
there  will  be  statesmen  and  citizens  to  represent  the 
issues,  and  London  will  take  her  place  in  the  new 
development.  She  will  be  a  different  liOndon  in  a 
different  world ;  perhaps  she  will  be  the  capital  city 
of  the  new  world. 

Whatever  the  result,  London  will  be  the  centre, 


350  LONDON 

as  she  has  been  the  centre  all  these  centuries,  of 
the  new  institutions  which  will  come  into  existence. 
It  will  not  be  a  small  uncared-for  London,  not  a 
London  shrinking  within  its  walls  and  commanding 
nothing  but  the  fragments  of  its  former  greatness 
— the  greatness  that  was  I^ondon.  She  will  be  a 
great  London  with  a  territorium  stretching  from  the 
Thames  to  the  sea,  endowed  with  powers  of  self- 
government  within  the  empire  to  which  she  belongs. 
London  at  this  stage  is  about  to  displace  her  history 
by  the  necessities  of  modern  life.  She  will  be  a  city 
governed  by  state  law  entirely,  governed  to  produce 
certain  results  in  the  health  and  general  good  of  her 
inhabitants  according  to  the  dicta  of  science  in  deter- 
mining what  is  public  health  and  public  good.  She 
will  work  alongside  of  other  cities,  gaining  and  im- 
parting the  lessons  of  experience.  The  old  order  has 
at  last  completely  changed.  Not  even  the  fragments 
of  immemorial  custom,  strewn  as  we  have  discovered 
across  the  pages  of  London  records,  will  survive. 
London  is  to  be  a  new  London.  And  in  taking  up 
her  new  position  she  will  not  ungladly  learn  the  best 
that  is  to  be  learned  of  her  great  past,  w^hich  has 
been  the  province  of  this  book  to  unravel. 


APPENDIX 

I  (p.  30) 

The  ArcIiaologicalJoianal,  \ol.  xlii.  pp.  2G9-302,  contains  an 
excellent  article  on  "  Early  Sites  and  Embankments  on  the 
Margins  of  the  Thames  Estuary,"  by  Mr  F.  C.  J.  Spurrell.  The 
geological  evidence  is  carefully  examined  and  its  relationship  to 
the  arch;i?ological  finds  stated  very  clearly,  and  though  subsequent 
research  has  added  fresh  material  to  both  sections  of  the  study 
it  would  not  appear  to  vary  considerably  the  conclusions  drawn 
by  Mr  Spurrell.  The  Romans  were  very  busy  in  the  Thames. 
Pottery,  including  Samian  ware,  is  found  in  layers  and  scattered 
over  the  foreshore  and  banks  of  the  river  (p.  276).  At  Higham 
the  Roman  potteries  covered  the  land  for  about  three  miles 
along  the  edge  of  the  marsh  (p.  277).  The  general  level  of  the 
pottery  works  is  about  eleven  feet  down  (p.  279).  Nowhere  has 
Saxon  pottery  been  seen  or  heard  of  (p.  280).  At  Barking  on 
the  edge  of  the  Roding  there  are  remains  of  a  large  prehistoric 
camp.  This  camp  is  a  waterside  camp,  but  is  wholly  above 
tidal  level  ;  it  appears  to  have  been  of  the  order  of  camps  of 
refuge  for  women,  children,  and  cattle,  surrounded  by  swamps 
to  which  its  protection  was  mainly  left ;  at  the  north  east 
corner  is  a  watch  mound  which  rises  scarcely  fifteen  feet  above 
the  average  level  of  the  camp  (p.  297).  At  Crayford  is  the 
barest  outline  of  an  oval  camp  (p.  297). 

II  (p.  62) 

The  followi)ig  passages  from  Wren's  ParentaUa  afford  addi- 
tional  information    on    the   point  of   view  adopted  by  Wren : 

351 


352  LONDON 

"It  has  been  before  obsery'd  (Sect.  1)  that  the  Graves  of 
several  Ages  and  Fashions  in  strata,  or  Layers  of  Earth  one 
above  another,  particularly  at  the  North-side  of  Paul's,  mani- 
festly shew'd  a  great  Antiquity  from  the  British  and  Roman 
Times,  by  the  Means  whereof  the  ground  had  been  raised ;  but 
upon  searching  for  the  natural  Ground  below  these  Graves,  the 
Surveyor  observed  that  the  Foundation  of  the  old  Church  stood 
upon  a  layer  of  very  close  and  hard  Pot-earth,  and  concluded 
that  the  same  Ground  which  had  born  so  weighty  a  Building 
might  reasonably  be  trusted  again.  However,  he  had  the 
Curiosity  to  search  further,  and  accordingly  dug  Wells  in 
several  Places,  and  discerned  this  hard  Pot-earth  to  be  on  the 
North-side  of  the  Churchyard  about  six  Feet  thick,  and  more, 
but  thinner  and  thinner  towards  the  South,  till  it  was  upon  the 
declining  of  the  Hill  scarce  four  Feet :  still  he  searched  lower, 
and  found  nothing  but  dry  Sand,  mix'd  sometimes  unequally, 
but  loose,  so  that  it  would  run  through  the  Fingers.  He  went 
on  till  he  came  to  Water  and  Sand  mixed  with  Periwincles  and 
other  Sea-shells ;  these  were  about  the  level  of  Low-water  Mark. 
He  continued  boreing  till  he  came  to  hard  Beach,  and  still  under 
that,  till  he  came  to  the  natural  hard  Clay,  which  lies  under 
the  City,  and  Country,  and  Thames  also  far  and  wide. 

"  By  these  Shells  it  was  evident  the  Sea  had  been  where  now 
the  Hill  is,  on  which  Paul's  stands. 

"  The  Surveyor  was  of  opinion,  the  whole  Country  between 
Camberwell-hill,  and  the  Hills  of  Essex  might  have  been  a  great 
Frith  or  Sinus  of  the  Sea,  and  much  wider  near  the  Mouth  of 
the  Thames,  which  made  a  large  Plain  of  Sand  at  Low-water, 
through  which  the  River  found  its  way ;  but  at  Low-water,  as 
oft  it  happened  in  Summer-weather,  when  the  Sun  dried  the 
Surface  of  the  Sand,  and  a  strong  Wind  happened  at  the  same 
time,  before  the  Flood  came  on,  the  Sands  would  drive  with  the 
Wind,  and  raise  Heaps,  and  in  Time  large  and  lofty  Sand-hills ; 
for  so  are  the  Sand-hills  raised  upon  the  opposite  Coasts  of 
Flanders  and  Holland.  The  Sands  upon  such  a  Conjuncture  of 
Sun-shine  and  Wind,  drive  in  visible  Clouds :  this  might  be  the 


APPENDIX  353 

effect  of  many  Ages,  before  History,  and  yet  without  having 
Recourse  to  the  Flood. 

"  This  mighty  broad  Sand  (now  good  Meadow)  was  restrained 
by  large  Banks  still  remaining,  and  reducing  the  River  into  its 
Channel ;  a  great  Work,  of  which  no  History  gives  account : 
the  Britains  were  too  rude  to  attempt  it ;  the  Saxons  too  much 
busied  with  continual  Wars ;  he  concluded  therefore  it  was  a 
Roman  Work  ;  one  little  Breach  in  his  Time  cost  17,000i?  to 
restore. 

"  The  Sand-hill  at  Paul's  in  the  Time  of  the  Roman  Colony, 
was  about  12  Feet  lower  than  now  it  is;  and  the  finer  Sand 
easier  driving  with  the  AVind  lay  uppermost,  and  the  hard  Coat 
of  Pot-earth  might  be  thus  made  ;  for  Pot-earth  dissolved  in 
Water,  and  view"'d  by  a  Microscope,  is  but  impalpable  fine  Sand, 
which  w  ith  Fire  will  vitrify  ;  and,  of  this  Earth  upon  the  Place 
were  those  Urns,  Sacrificing  Vessels,  and  other  Pottery-ware 
made,  which  (as  noted  before)  were  found  here  in  great  Abund- 
ance, more  especially  towards  the  North-east  of  the  Ground. 

"  In  the  Progress  of  the  Works  of  the  Foundations,  the 
Surveyor  met  with  one  unexpected  difficulty ;  he  began  to  lay 
the  Foundations  from  the  West-end,  and  had  proceeded  success- 
fully through  the  Dome  to  the  East-end,  where  the  Brick-earth 
Bottom  was  yet  very  good  ;  but  as  he  went  on  to  the  North-east 
Corner,  which  was  the  last,  and  where  nothing  was  expected  to 
interrupt,  he  fell,  in  prosecuting  the  design,  upon  a  Pit,  where 
all  the  Pot-earth  had  been  robbVl  by  the  Potters  of  old  Time : 
here  were  discovered  Quantities  of  Urns,  broken  Vessels,  and 
Pottery-ware  of  divers  Sorts  and  Shapes ;  how  far  this  Pit 
extended  Northward,  there  was  no  occasion  to  examine  ;  no  Ox- 
sculls,  Horns  of  Stags,  and  Tusks  of  Boars  were  found,  to 
corroborate  the  Accounts  of  Stow,  Camden,  and  others  ;  nor  any 
Foundations  more  Eastward.  If  there  was  formerly  any  Temple 
to  Diana,  he  supposed  it  might  have  been  within  the  Walls 
of  the  Colony,  and  more  to  the  South "  (Wren's  PaientaUa, 
MDCCL.,  pp.  285-6). 

"  The  extent  of  the  Roman  Colony,  or  Praefecture,  particularly 

23 


354 


LONDON 


Northward,    the    Surveyor    had   occasion    to   discover   by    this 
Accident.       The    parochial    Church    of    St   Mary    le    Bow,    in 
Cheapside,  required   to    be   rebuilt    after  the  great   Fire :    the 
Building  had  been   mean   and  low,  with  one  corner  taken  out 
for  a  Tower,  but  upon  restoring  that,  the  new  Church  could  be 
rendered  square.     Upon  opening  the  ground,  a  Foundation  was 
discerned  firm  enough  for  the  new  intended  Fabrick,  which  (on 
further  Inspection,  after  digging  down  sufficiently,  and  remov- 
ing what  Earth  or  Rubbish  lay  in  the  way)  appeared  to  be  Walls 
with   the  Windows  also,  and  the   Pavement  of  a  Temple,   or 
Church,  of   Roman    Workmanship,  intirely    bury'd    under   the 
Level  of  the  present  Street.     Hereupon,  he  determined  to  erect 
his   new  Church  over  the  old ;   and   in  order  to  the  necessary 
regularity  and  Square  of  the  new  Design,  restord  the  Corner; 
but  then  another  place  was  to  be  found  for  the  Steeple :  the 
Church  stood  about  40  Feet  backwards  from  the  high  Street, 
and  by  purchasing  the  Ground  of  one  private  House  not  yet  re- 
built, he  was  enabled  to  bring  the  Steeple  forward  so  as  to  range 
with  the  Street-houses  of  Cheapside.     Here,  to  his  Surprise,  he 
sunk    about    18    Feet    deep    through    made-ground,   and    then 
imagined  he  was  come  to  the  natural  Soil,  and  hard  Gravel,  but 
upon  full  Examination,  it  appeared  to  be  a  Roman  Causeway  of 
rough  Stone,  close  and  well  rammed,  with  Roman    Brick    and 
Rubbish   at    the   Bottom,    for    a    Foundation,   and    all    firmly 
cemented.     This  Causeway  was  four  Feet  thick  (the  thickness  of 
the  Via  Appia,  according  as  Mons.  Montfaucon  measured,  it  was 
about  three  Parisian  Feet,  or  three  Feet  two  Inches  and  a  half 
English).     Underneath  this  Causeway  lay  the  natural  Clay,  over 
which  that  part  of  the  City  stands,  and  which  descends  at  least 
forty  Feet  lower.     He  concluded  then  to  lay  the  Foundation  of 
the  Tower  upon  the  very  Roman  Causeway,  as  most  proper  to 
bear  what  he  had  designed,  a  weighty  and  lolty  Structure. 

"  He  was  of  opinion  for  divers  Reasons,  that  this  High-way 
ran  along  the  North  Boundary  of  the  Colony.  The  Breadth 
then  North  and  South,  was  from  the  Causeway,  now  Cheapside, 
to  the  River  Thames ;  the  Extent  East  and  West,  from  Tower 


APPENDIX  3,55 

Hill  to  Ludirate,  and  the  principal  middle  Street,  or  rrffitorian 
Way,  was  VVatling  Street. 

"  The  Colony  was  walPd  next  the  Thames,  and  had  a  Gate 
there  called  Dow-gate,  but  anciently  Dour-gate,  which  signified 
the  \Vater-gate. 

"  On  the  North  side,  beyond  the  Causeway,  was  a  great  Fen, 
or  Morass,  in  those  Times ;  which  the  Surveyor  discovered  more 
particularly  when  he  had  occasion  to  build  a  new  East-front  to 
the  parochial  Church  of  St  Laurence  near  Guildhall ;  for  the 
Foundation  of  which,  after  sinking  seven  Feet,  he  was  obliged 
to  pile  twelve  Feet  deeper ;  and  if  there  was  no  Causeway  over 
the  Bog,  there  could  be  no  reason  for  a  Gate  that  Way. 

"At  length  about  the  Year  1414,  all  this  moorish  ground  was 
drained  by  the  Industry  and  Charge  of  Francerius,  a  Lord-mayor, 
and  still  retains  the  name  of  Moor-fields,  and  the  Gate,  Moor- 
gate.  London-stone,  as  is  generally  supposed,  was  a  pillar,  in 
the  Manner  of  the  Milliarium  Aureum,  at  Rome,  from  whence 
the  Account  of  their  Miles  began  ;  but  the  Surveyor  was  of 
Opinion  by  Reason  of  the  large  Foundation,  it  was  rather  some 
more  considerable  Monument  in  the  Forum  ;  for  in  the  adjoin- 
ing Ground  on  the  South  Side  (upon  digging  for  Cellars,  after 
the  Great  Fire)  were  discovered  some  tessellated  Pavements, 
and  other  extensive  Remains  of  Roman  Workmanship,  and 
Buildings.^ 

"  On  the  West-side  was  situated  the  Pnttorian  Camp,  which 
was  also  walPd  in  to  Ludgate,  in  the  Vallum  of  which,  was  dug 
up  near  the  Gate,  after  the  Fire,  a  Stone,  with  an  Inscription, 
and  the  Figure  of  a  Roman  Soldier,  which  the  Surveyor  pre- 
sented to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  sent  it  to  Oxford, 
and  it  is  reposited  among  the  Arundellian  Marbles.     This  is  a 

'  Probably  this  might  in  some  degree  have  imitated  the  MiUiarium 
Aureum  at  Constantinople,  which  was  not  in  the  Form  of  a  pillar  as  at 
Rome,  but  an  eminent  Building ;  for  under  its  Roof  (according  to 
Cedrenus  and  Suidas)  stood  the  Statues  of  Constantine  and  Helena  ; 
Trajan  ;  an  equestrian  Statue  of  Hadrian  ;  a  Statue  of  Fortune  ;  and 
many  other  Figures  and  Decorations. 


356  LONDON 

sepulchral  Monument  dedicated  to  the  Memory  of  Vivius 
Marcianus,  a  Soldier  of  the  second  Legion,  stiPd  Augusta,  by 
his  Wife  Januaria  Matrina.     The  Inscription  is  in  this  Manner  : 

D.    M. 

VIVIO    MARCI 

-ANO    ML.    LEG.    II. 

AVG.    lANVARIA 

MATINA    CONIVNX 

PIENTISSIMA    POSV 

-IT    ME    MORIIAM. 

"  N.B. — The  Extract  of  this  Inscription  published  in  the 
Marmora  Oxoniensia,  Numb.  147,  is  erroneous. 

"  The  Soldiers  used  to  be  buried  in  Vallo,  as  the  Citizens, 
extra  Portas  in  Pomaerio ;  there  'tis  most  probable  the  extent 
of  the  Camp  reached  to  Ludgate,  to  the  declining  Hill,  that 
Way.  The  Surveyor  gave  but  little  Credit  to  the  common 
Story,  that  a  Temple  had  been  here  to  Diana  (which  some  have 
believed  upon  the  report  of  the  digging  up,  formerly,  and  of 
later  Years,  Horns  of  Stags,  Ox-heads,  Tusks  of  Boars,  etc.), 
meeting  with  no  such  indications  in  all  his  Searches  ;  but  that 
the  North-side  of  this  Ground  had  been  very  anciently  a  great 
Burying-place  was  manifest ;  for  upon  the  digging  the  Founda- 
tions of  the  present  Fabrick  of  St  Paul's  he  found  under  the 
Graves  of  the  latter  ages,  in  a  row  below  them,  the  Burial 
Places  of  the  Saxon  Times :  the  Saxons  as  it  appeared,  were 
accustomed  to  line  their  Graves  with  Chalk-stones,  though  some 
more  eminent  were  entomed  in  Coffins  of  whole  Stones.  Below 
these  were  British  Graves,  where  were  found  Ivory  and  Wooden 
Pins,  of  a  hard  Wood  seemingly  Box,  in  Abundance,  of  about 
6  Inches  long ;  it  seems  the  Bodies  were  only  wrapped  up,  and 
pinned  in  woollen  Shrouds,  which  being  consumed,  the  Pins 
remained  entire.  In  the  same  row  and  deeper,  were  Roman 
Urns  intermixed :  This  was  eighteen  Feet  deep  or  more,  and 
belonged  to  the  Colony  when  Romans  and  Britains  lived  and 
died  together. 


APPENDIX  357 

"  The  most  remarkable  Roman  Urns,  I^amps,  Lacrymatories, 
and  Fragmants  of  Sacrificing-vessels,  etc.,  were  found  deep  in 
the  Ground,  towards  the  North-east  Corner  of  St  Paul's 
Church,  near  Cheapside ;  these  were  generally  well  wrought, 
and  embossed  with  various  figures  and  devices,  of  the  Colour  of 
the  modern  red  Portugal  Ware,  some  brighter  like  Coral,  and 
of  a  Hardness  equal  to  China  Ware,  and  as  well  glaz'd.  Among 
divers  Pieces  which  happened  to  have  been  preserved,  are,  a 
Fragment  of  a  Vessel,  in  Shape  of  a  Bason,  whereon  Charon  is 
represented  with  his  Oar  in  his  Hand  receiving  a  naked  Ghost ; 
a  paters  sacrificalis  with  an  inscription  pater,  clo.,  a  remarkable 
small  Urn  of  a  fine  hard  earth,  and  leaden  Colour,  containing 
about  half  a  pint ;  many  Pieces  of  Urns  with  the  names  of 
the   Potters   embossed    on  the  Bottoms,  such  as,  for    instance, 

Al.mJCI.     M.^     VICTORINUS.     PATKR.     F.-     MOSSI.     M.     OF.^     XIGRI.      AO. 

MAPiLii.  M.,  etc.,  a  sepulchral  earthen  Lamp,  figured  with  two 
Branches  of  Palms,  supposed  Christian  ;  and  two  Lacrymatories 
of  Glass. 

"  Among  the  many  Antiquities  the  Surveyor  had  the  fortune 
to  discover  in  other  parts  of  the  Town,  after  the  Fire,  the  most 
curious  was  a  large  Roman  Urn,  or  Ossuary  of  Glass,  with  a 
handle,  containing  a  Gallon  and  half,  but  with  a  very  short 
Neck,  and  wide  Mouth,  of  whiter  Metal,  encompassed  Girthwise, 
with  five  parallel  Circles.  This  was  found  in  Spital-fields, 
which  he  presented  to  the  Royal-society,  and  is  preserved  in 
their  Museum"  (Wren's  Parentalia,  MDCCL.,  pp.  265-267). 

HI  (p.  63) 

In  Strijpe's  AddHions  to  Stoxv  (vol.  ii..  Appendix,  chapter  v.) 
is  a  description  of  the  Woodward  collection  which  will  form  a 
useful  addendum  to  the  text. 

"  Of  divers  Roman  and  other  antique  Curiosities  found  in 
London,  before  and  since  the  great  Fire. 

"There  are  preserved,  either   in  public    Repositories,  or    in 

^  Manibus.  -  Fecit.  ^  Officina. 


358  LONDON 

more  private  Custody,  many  antique  Curiosities  :  Found  chiefly 
in  Dio;einff  Foundations  for  the  Buildino;  of  London  after  the 
great  Fire,  and  occasionally  at  other  Times. 

"  In  the  Repository  of  the  Royal  Society  in  Gresham  College, 
there  is  a  large  Glass  Urn,  that  holds  about  a  Gallon  ;  and  hath 
a  few  Shivers  of  Bones  in  it :  It  was  taken  up  since  the  Fire  in 
Spittlefields.  The  Glass  is  somewhat  thick,  bellying  out,  and 
contracting  towards  the  Mouth  with  a  Lip. 

"  But  the  Collection,  made  by  Dr  John  Woodward,  Professor 
of  Physic  in  Gresham  College,  is  by  much  the  most  considerable 
of  any.  For,  besides  an  ancient  marble  Bust  of  Jupiter,  a 
marble  Head  with  a  Phrygian  Tiara,  a  Grecian  Basso-Relievo, 
a  Votive  Shield,  exhibiting  the  Sacking  of  Rome  by  the  Gauls  ; 
the  Embossment  of  which  is  allowed  by  the  greatest  Judges 
to  be  the  finest  and  most  exquisite  that  all  Antiquity  has  left 
us :  Several  Icunculi  of  the  Deities,  both  Egyptian  and  Roman  : 
a  considerable  Variety  of  Amulets,  Periapta,  Phalli,  Bullae, 
Scarabaei :  Gems  with  historical  Sculpture,  Heads,  etc.  graven 
upon  them  :  Camei  and  Intaglia's  of  Egyptian,  Grecian,  and 
Roman  Work  :  Many  Roman,  Greek,  Syrian,  and  other  Medals  : 
Roman  Weights  :  A  Roman  Semi-Congius :  LTrns,  I^achryma- 
tories,  and  other  Things,  procured  from  Alexandria,  Constanti- 
nople, Rome,  etc.  And,  besides,  an  ancient  Roman  Altar  from 
the  Picts  Wall  in  Northumberland,  with  a  considerable  Inscrip- 
tion upon  it :  Several  ancient  Weapons  of  Brass,  Thuribula, 
Patene,  Urns,  etc.,  found  in  the  remoter  Parts  of  this  Kingdom, 
Cumberland,  the  Isle  of  Man,  Yorkshire,  Wiltshire,  Gloucester- 
shire, Northamptonshire,  Devonshire,  etc.  He  has  a  vast  Variety 
of  ancient  Instruments,  Utensils,  Vasa,  and  the  like,  that  have 
been  discovered  in  several  Places  in  and  about  this  City :  In 
particular,  several  Vessels  of  religious  Use,  and  employed  in 
the  Sacrifices,  as,  for  Example,  Pnefericula,  Simpula,  Paterae, 
Thuribula,  Labra,  digged  up ;  together  with  Horns,  Teeth,  and 
other  Parts  of  the  Beasts  that  were  offered  in  Sacrifice ;  above 
twenty  Sepulchral  Urns,  of  various  Forms  and  Sizes  :  Likewise, 
Lances,    Amphora),    Crateres,    Scyphi,    Gutti,    Pocula,    Ollae 


APPENDIX  359 

numinarias  clausae ;  Parts  of  the  Plasmatafictilia,  in  which  the 
embossed  Vasa  were  moulded ;  and  Lamps  of  various  Sorts. 
The  precedent  Vessels  are  of  Pot  or  Earth ;  several  of  them 
extremely  fine,  well  baked,  some  curiously  glazed,  and  the 
Colours  very  beautiful. 

"  As  to  their  Forms,  they  are  universally  very  elegant  and 
handsome.  And,  indeed,  the  Doctor,  the  Possessor  of  them, 
well  observes,  that  the  Remains  of  these  Works  of  the  Romans 
shew  them  to  have  been  a  People  of  an  exact  Genius,  good  Fancy, 
and  curious  Contrivance. 

"  It  is  observable  also  in  this  Collection,  that  the  Things  are 
fair,  well  preserved,  and  intire ;  which,  considering  the  great 
Number  and  Diversity  of  them,  how  brittle  Pots  and  Glasses 
are,  and  how  liable  to  be  defaced,  injured,  and  dashed  in  Pieces, 
is  the  more  extraordinary. 

"  He  hath  likewise,  in  his  Cabinet  of  Antiquities,  a  Glass 
Urn,  with  a  Cover ;  also  a  Scyphus ;  divers  Ampullae,  Phialae, 
and  I^achrymatories  of  Glass,  that  are  very  fair  and  perfect. 
Then,  there  are  several  Pieces  of  British  Money,  coined  both 
before  and  after  the  Descent  of  the  Romans  upon  this  Island. 
As  also  Roman  Numismata,  coined  here  :  Besides,  Saxon,  Danish, 
and  Norman  Coins,  which,  as  well  as  others,  are  very  fair,  and 
happily  preserved.  Likewise,  Styles  of  Ivory,  Bone,  and  Steel : 
Several  Fibular,  Aciculi,  Bulla?,  Claves,  Armilla^,  Annuli,  Beads 
of  various  Sorts ;  Aleas,  Tessarae,  Pectines,  Calcaria,  Spicula, 
Jacula.  Likewise  Tiles,  Pieces  of  Lithostrata,  or  tessellated 
Pavements  of  Earth,  Glass,  Paste,  Enamel,  and  gilt. 

"  So  that  Dr  Woodward's  Museum  is  a  Treasury  of  all  Sorts 
of  Commodities  and  Utensils,  sacred  and  profane,  of  ancient 
Heathen  Rome :  As  Vessels  for  Sacrifice,  and  for  other  sub- 
ordinate Uses  in  Sacrh.  Vessels  also  for  Uses  Domestic, 
Sepulchral,  Military,  Personal,  for  Wearing  and  Dressing :  Also 
divers  Pieces  of  Art  relating  to  Building,  or  Sculpture,  ex- 
planatory of  some  Parts  of  Roman  History. 

"  Besides  these  Remains  of  Roman  Skill  and  Workmanship, 
here  are  also  reposited  several   Gothic    historical    Carvings,  in 


360  LONDON 

Copper,  Ivory,  and  Wood ;  the  Work  of  some  of  them  very 
good :  Impresses  on  Lead,  and  leaden  Seals,  that  have  been 
affixed  anciently  to  Popes  Bulls ;  with  various  other  Things,  all 
well  chosen,  of  real  Importance,  and  serviceable  to  some  useful 
Design. 

"  One  great  Intention  of  this  learned  Gentleman,  as  he  hath 
assured  me,  in  amassing  together  so  great  a  Number  of  these 
Things,  and  that  with  so  great  Diligence,  Trouble,  and  Expense, 
was  in  Order  to  clear  and  give  Light  to  those  ancient  writers 
who  mention  and  treat  of  them,  viz.  the  Greeks  and  Romans ; 
which  he  has  read  and  studied  with  great  Exactness.  Another 
of  his  Ends  herein  was,  to  illustrate  the  History  and  Antiquities 
of  this  great  and  noble  City ;  out  of  the  Ruins  of  which  these 
Things  were  retrieved,  upon  the  Occasion  of  that  great  Digging, 
greater  indeed  than  ever  happened  from  the  Foundation  of  it 
before,  and  the  Removal  of  Rubbish  that  was  made  in  all  Parts, 
after  the  late  great  Fire.  And,  indeed,  the  Medals  and  Coins, 
the  various  Figures,  historical  Embossments,  and  Inscriptions 
upon  the  Vases,  contribute  very  much  to  that  End.  And 
farther,  from  the  various  Places  in  which  the  Urns  were  found 
reposited,  which,  according  to  the  Laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables, 
were  to  be  buried  without  the  Walls,  he  is  able  to  ascertain  the 
ancient  Bounds  of  this  City,  whilst  Roman :  From  several 
Things  discovered  in  laying  the  Foundation  of  St  Paul's  Church, 
to  shew,  not  only  that  there  was  anciently  a  Temple  there ;  but 
also,  by  some  Instances  to  prove  that  it  was  dedicated  to  Diana, 
according  to  the  ancient  Tradition,  notwithstanding  what  a  very 
learned  Antiquary,  as  well  as  Divine,  has  lately  offered  to  the 
Contrary. 

"  Indeed,  the  far  greater  Part  of  these  Things  is  so  very 
considerable,  that  it  would  afford  much  Satisfaction  to  inquisi- 
tive People,  to  see  Icons  graved  of  them  ;  and  that  the  Possessor 
could  have  spared  so  much  Time  from  his  Business,  and  his 
other  Studies,  as  to  have  writ  his  own  Observations  and  Reflec- 
tions upon  them,  that  I  might  have  entered  them,  as  I  requested 
him,  in  this  Work. 


1 


APPENDIX  361 

"  Near  the  Foundation  of  Charing  Cross,  at  a  great  Depth, 
were  Stones  found,  wliich  seemed  to  be  a  sort  of  coarse  Marble, 
of  a  bhu'kish  Colour,  and  cut  into  several  plain  Sides,  but 
iregular :  From  whence,  saith  Dr  Crew,  they  may  be  argued  to 
be  very  ancient.  These  were  given  by  Sir  Joseph  Williamson 
to  the  Museum  in  Gresham  College. 

"  In  Mark  Lane  a  strange  Brick  was  found  40  Years  before, 
or  better,  about  20  Feet  deep  in  the  Ground,  by  Mr  Stockley, 
while  he  was  digging  a  Foundation  and  Cellars  for  an  House 
which  he  built  for  Mr  Woolly.  On  this  Brick  was  formed 
Sampson,  as  I  had  it  from  J.  Bagford,  with  the  Jaw-bone  of  an 
Ass  in  his  right  Hand,  and  his  left  Hand  lifted  up ;  with  two 
Foxes  before  him,  running  together,  with  Firebrands  at  their 
Tails ;  scaring  them  into  high  standing  Corn  hard  by.  This, 
methinks,  might  have  belonged  to  the  House  of  some  Jew 
dwelling  thereabouts ;  signifying  his  Malice  to  some  neighbour- 
ing Christian  Merchant  that  dealt  in  Corn,  For  it  is  remark- 
able, that,  near  this  Place  where  this  Brick  was  found,  was  also 
digged  up  burnt  Wheat,  to  the  Quantity  of  many  Quarters ; 
very  black,  but  yet  sound :  Probably  it  was  some  Granary 
consumed  by  Fire. 

"  But  take  what  the  said  Mr  Bagford  hath  since  writ  in  his 
Letter  to  Mr  Hearne  of  Oxford :  That  this  Brick  was  of 
Roman  Make,  of  a  curious  red  Clay,  and  in  Bass-relief;  and 
was  a  Key  Brick  to  the  Arch  :  And  the  burnt  Wheat  was 
conjectured  to  have  lain  buried  ever  since  the  Burning  of  the 
City  800  Years  before.  And  that  it  is  preserved  in  the  Museum 
belonging  to  the  Royal  Society  in  Fleet  Street.  And  that 
jVIr  Waller's  Conjecture  of  it  was,  that  it  had  been  made  and 
set  there  by  some  Jew,  settling  here,  in  the  Arch  of  his  own 
Granary. 

"  A  Piece  of  Mosaic  Work  found  deep  under  Ground  in 
Holborn  near  St  Andrew's  Church,  inlaid  with  black,  white, 
and  red  Stones  in  Squares,  and  other  regular  Figures.  In  the 
abovesaid  Museum. 

"  In  digging  for  the  Foundations  of  St  Paul's  Cathedral  at  the 


362  LONDON 

west  End  since  the  Fire,  was  found  Variety  of  Roman  sacrificing 
Vessels,  whereof  a  great  Quantity  of  the  Fragments  were  digged 
up.  They  were  made  of  a  curious  red  Earth ;  the  Gla/ing  of 
them  still  remains,  which  is  curious.  They  are  of  divers  Shapes 
and  Sizes,  as  Occasion  should  require  them  to  be  made  Use  of  in 
their  Sacrifices.  And,  in  many,  the  Potter's  Name  was  stamped 
at  the  Bottom.  Some  of  these  Mr  Bagford,  a  Citizen  of  London, 
studious  of  Antiquities,  and  especially  of  such  as  relate  to 
the  said  City,  took  up  with  his  own  Hands.  Farther,  on  the 
south  Side  of  the  said  west  End  was  found  a  Potter's  Kiln,  the 
Shape  of  which  was  circular.  In  this  the  abovesaid  sacrificing 
Vessels  probably  were  made.  It  was  near  to  the  Temple  where 
Diana  was  worshipped,  for  the  more  Convenience  of  the  People 
that  came  thither  to  sacrifice ;  that  they  might  be  furnished 
with  all  Sorts  of  Vessels  they  had  Occasion  for,  at  the  Time 
when  they  made  their  Sacrifices.  And  likewise  thereabouts 
were  found  several  Moulds  of  Earth,  some  exhibiting  Figures  of 
Men,  of  Lions,  of  Leaves  of  Trees,  and  other  Things.  These 
were  used  to  make  Impression  of  those  Things  upon  the  Vessels. 
These  Moulds  are  also  among  the  forementioned  curious 
Collections  of  Dr  Woodward.  The  Representation  of  the 
foresaid  Pottery,  drawn  with  a  Pen,  is  in  the  Possession  of  Sir 
Hans  Sloane,  Bart.,  M.D.,  of  the  Royal  Society,  with  a 
Description  of  it  added. 

"  Also,  at  the  south  Side  of  St  Paul's  Church,  at  the 
Beginning  to  build  it  after  the  Fire,  were  found  several  Scalps 
of  Oxen,  and  a  large  Quantity  of  Boars  Tusks,  with  divers 
earthen  Vessels,  especially  Pateme  of  different  Shapes. 

"  In  Cannon  Street,  nigh  Bush  Lane,  was  found,  pretty  deep 
in  the  Earth,  a  large  Pavement  of  Roman  Mosaic  Work.  Dr 
Hook  gave  a  Piece  of  it  to  the  Repository  in  Gresham  College. 

"  In  Goodman's  Fields,  without  Aldgate,  was  a  Roman 
Burying-place.  For,  since  the  Buildings  there,  about  1678, 
have  been  found  there,  in  Digging  for  Foundations,  vast 
Quantities  of  Urns,  and  other  Roman  Utensils,  as  Knives, 
C'ombs,  etc.,  which  are  likewise  in  the  Possession  of  Dr  Wood- 


APPENDIX  303 

ward.  Some  of  these  Urns  had  Ashes  of  Bonos  of  the  Dead  in 
them,  and  Bi-ass  and  Silver  Money  :  And  an  unusual  I"'^rn  of 
Copper,  curiously  enamelled  in  Colours,  red,  blue,  and  yellow. 

"  In  Kent-street,  all  along  the  Gardens  on  the  right  Hand 
Side  of  the  Road,  going  out  of  Town,  have  been  digged  up 
several  Roman  Vessels,  as  Urns,  Ampulla?,  and  other  Things ; 
and  among  the  rest,  an  Head  of  Janus,  cut  in  Stone,  that  is 
still  preserved,  being  placed  over  the  Door  at  the  Entry  of  one 
of  those  Gardeners  Houses.  Money  was  offered  for  this  Janus^s 
Head,  but  it  would  not  be  taken  ;  being  kept  superstitiously, 
as  tho'  it  were  found  by  Revelation  in  a  Dream  ;  a  Woman, 
about  the  Time  it  was  found,  dreaming,  she  was  brought  to 
Bed  of  a  Child  with  two  Faces. 

"  At  Peckham  was  a  very  large  Urn  of  Glass  digged  up  in 
the  Highway,  which  is  now  in  Gresham  College.  For  these 
last  Accounts  I  am  beholden  to  my  Friend,  the  abovesaid  Mr 
Bagford,  late  deceased  in  the  Charter-house,  having  been  a 
brother  there. 

"In  April,  in  the  Year  1707,  divers  Roman  Antiquities  were 
found  in  digging  by  the  Wall  near  Bishopsgate  within.  Mr 
Joseph  Miller,  an  Apothecary,  living  very  near  the  Place,  while 
the  Labourers  were  digging  for  Foundations  and  Cellars,  for 
some  new  Houses  to  be  built  in  Camomile-street,  did  first  dis- 
cover several  of  these  Antiquities ;  which  he  communicated  to 
Dr  Woodward  of  Gresham  College  aforesaid  :  Who,  according 
to  his  wonted  Exactness,  gave  this  Narration  of  them  in  a  Letter 
to  Sir  Christopher  Wren,  which  he  courteously  let  me  peruse  : 
'  About  four  Feet  under  Ground  was  discovered  a  Pavement, 
consisting  of  diced  Bricks,  the  most  red,  but  some  black,  and 
others  yellow :  each  somewhat  above  an  Inch  in  Thickness. 
The  Extent  of  the  Pavement  in  Length  was  uncertain,  it 
running  from  Bishopsgate  for  sixty  Feet,  (juite  under  the 
Foundation  of  some  Houses  not  yet  pulled  down.  Its  Breadth 
was  about  ten  Feet,  terminating  on  that  Side,  at  the  Distance 
of  three  Feet  and  a  half  from  the  Wall. 

" '  Sinking  downwards   under   the    Pavement,  only    Rubbish 


364  LONDON 

occurred  for  about  two  Feet,  and  then  the  Workmen  came  to  a 
Stratum  of  Clay  in  its  natural  State  :  In  which,  at  the  Depth 
of  three  Feet  more,  were  found  several  Urns,  Some  of  them 
were  become  so  tender  and  rotten,  that  they  easily  crumbled 
and  fell  to  Pieces.  As  for  those  that  had  the  Fortune  better 
to  escape  the  Injuries  of  Time,  and  the  Strokes  of  the  Work- 
men, they  were  of  different  Forms ;  but  all  of  very  handsome 
Make  and  Contrivance,  as,  indeed,  most  of  the  Roman  Vessels 
we  find  ever  are :  Which  is  but  one  of  the  many  Instances  that 
are  this  Day  extant  of  the  Art  of  that  People,  of  the  great 
Exactness  of  their  Genius,  and  Happiness  of  their  Fancy. 
These  Urns  were  of  various  Magnitudes ;  the  largest  capable  of 
holding  three  full  Gallons,  the  least  somewhat  above  a  Quart. 
All  these  had  in  them  Ashes  and  Cinders  of  burnt  Bones, 

" '  Along  with  the  Ums  were  found  various  other  earthen 
Vessels ;  as,  a  Simpulus,  a  Patera  of  a  very  fine  red  Earth,  and 
a  bluish  Glass  Phial  of  that  Sort  that  is  commonly  called  a 
Lachrymatory.  On  this  there  appeared  something  like  Gilding, 
very  fine,' 

"  There  were  likewise  found  several  Beads,  one  or  two  Copper 
Rings,  a  Fibula  of  the  same  Metal,  but  much  impaired  and 
decayed  ;  as  also  a  Coin  of  Antoninus  Pius,  exhibiting  on  one 
Side  the  Head  of  that  Emperor,  with  a  radiated  Crown  on,  and 
this  Inscription,  Antoninus  Aug  .  .  . 

"  At  about  the  same  Depth  with  the  Things  beforementioned 
but  nearer  to  the  City  Wall,  and  without  the  Verge  of  the 
Pavement,  was  digged  up  an  human  Skull,  with  several  Bones 
that  had  not  been  burnt,  as  those  in  the  Urns  had  :  But,  for  a 
larger  and  more  satisfactory  Account  of  these  Antiquities,  I 
refer  the  Reader  to  the  said  learned  Doctor's  Letter,  now 
printed  at  large  by  Mr  Hearne,  with  Leland's  Itinerary,  in 
Octavo. 

"  An  Elephant's  Body  was  found  in  a  Field  near  to  Sir  John 
Oldcastle's,  not  far  from  Battle -bridge,  by  Mr  John  Coniers,  an 
Apothecary,  and  a  great  Searcher  after  Antiquities,  as  he  was 
digging  there. 


APPENDIX  365 

"  Some  Years  ago,  on  the  south  Side  of  Luclgate,  was  taken 
up,  out  of  the  Rubbish,  a  Roman  Inscription,  taken  notice  of 
by  learned  Men. 

"Coming  in  at  Ludgate,  in  the  Residentiary 's  Yard  of  St 
Paul's,  was  discovered  some  Years  ago  an  Acjueduct,  close  ad- 
joining to  the  Wall  of  the  City.  And  such  another  was  found 
after  the  Fire  by  Mr  Span  in  Holyday  yard  in  Creed  lane,  in 
digging  the  Foundation  for  a  new  Building  ;  and  this  was  carried 
round  a  Bath,  that  was  built  in  a  Roman  Form,  with  Niches  at 
an  equal  Distance  for  Seats. 

"Anno  1716,  in  digging  for  the  Foundation  of  a  new  Church, 
to  be  erected  where  the  Chvu'ch  of  St  Mary  Woolnoth  in 
Lombard -street  stood,  at  the  Depth  of  about  15  Feet,  and  so 
lower  to  22  Feet,  were  found  Roman  Vessels,  both  for  sacred 
and  domestic  Uses,  of  all  Sorts,  and  in  great  Abundance,  but  all 
broken  :  And  withal  were  taken  up  Tuske  and  Bones  of  Boars 
and  Goats  ;  as  also  many  Medals  and  Pieces  of  Metals ;  some 
tesselated  Works,  a  Piece  of  an  Aqueduct ;  and  at  the  very 
Bottom  a  Well  filled  up  with  Mire  and  Dirt ;  which  being  taken 
away,  there  arose  a  fine  Spring  of  Water.  Dr  Harwood,  of  the 
Commons,  has  been  verv  exact  in  taking  Notice  from  Time  to 
Time  of  these  Antiquities;  and  hath  sorted  and  preserved  a 
great  many  of  the  most  curious  and  remarkable  of  them  ;  and 
supposeth,  by  probable  Conjecture,  that  here  was  not  only  a 
Pottery,  but  also,  that  on  this  Place,  or  near  it,  stood  the  Temple 
of  Concord  ;  which  our  Roman  Historians  speak  of  to  have  been 
in  this  City,  when  called  Trinobantum.  These  Sheards  were  in 
such  vast  Quantities,  that  many  Cart-loads  were  carried  away 
with  the  Rubbish,  and  the  Roads  about  St  George's  Fields  in 
Southwark  mended  with  them. 

"  Anno  1718,  in  the  Month  of  May,  the  Workmen,  pulling 
down  a  Wall  at  Bridewel  Hospital,  found  a  Gold  Ring  an  Inch 
and  a  Quarter  broad,  enamelled  :  Having  the  Resemblance  of 
Christ  on  the  Cross  engraved  on  it,  with  a  mourning  Heart,  and 
a  Pillar  with  a  Cock  on  the  Top.  The  Inscription  was  in 
Arabic ;  and  some  Antiquaries  who  saw  it,  reckoned  it  to  be 


366  LONDON 

1500  Years  since  it  was  made.     This  is  related  in  the  Weekly 
Journal,  No.  1047. 

"  This  is  what  I  could,  by  diligent  Enquiry  of  my  Friends, 
collect,  concerning  Antiquities  found  in  London." 

IV  (p.  88) 

A  complement  to  the  poem  quoted  in  the  text  (p.  88)  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  version  of  the  Beowulf  Saga.  Dr 
Stjerna's  valuable  essays  on  Beowulf  recently  translated  by  Mr 
Clark  Hall  for  the  Viking  Club  suggest  that  the  text  as  we 
have  it  is  an  Anglo-Saxon  writing  of  an  older  tradition,  and  he 
gives  good  evidence  of  this.  Incidentally  he  points  out  that 
the  hiding-place  for  treasure  "was  a  huge  treasure-house 
supported  by  stone  arches  resting  on  pillars  or  columns,  and 
that  the  exterior  of  the  dragon's  abode  is  several  times  called  a 
wall,"  and  that  this  idea  "  is  easily  explainable  if  it  originated 
in  England,  which  had  been  occupied  only  two  centuries  before 
by  the  vault-building  Romans.  The  construction  of  the  hall 
is  said  to  have  been  the  work  of  giants.  The  Anglo-Saxon 
conception  of  giants  was  that  of  a  strange,  remote,  half-legendary 
people  of  high  technical  skill.  When  the  Romans  evacuated 
England  they  drew  away  to  the  south  for  ever,  and  it  was 
natural  that  the  monuments  they  left  behind  them  should  be 
regarded  as  the  work  of  a  race  which  had  disappeared  from 
England  and  who  were  endowed  with  extraordinary  technical 
skiH"(pp.  37,  38). 

V  (p.  185) 

Sir  Walter  Raleigh  believed  whole-heartedly  in  the  schemes 
which  were  to  begin  England's  extension  of  Empire  and  to 
pour  the  riches  of  the  new  world  into  London.  Writing  on  the 
13th  November  1595  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  he  says :  "You  may 
perceive  that  it  is  no  dream  which  I  have  reported  of  Guiana, 
and  if  one  image  have  been  brought  from  thence  weighing  47 
kintalls,  which  cannot  be  so  little  worth  as  100  thousand  pounds, 
I  know  that  in  Manoa  there  are  store  of  these.     I  know  it  will 


i 


APPENDIX  367 

be  })re.sently  followed  both  by  the  Spanish  and  French,  and  if 
it  be  foreslowed  bv  us  I  conclude  that  we  are  curst  of  God. 
In  the  meantime  I  humbly  beseech  you  to  move  Her  Majesty 
that  none  be  suffered  to  foil  the  enterprise,  and  that  those  kings 
of  the  borders  which  are  by  my  labour,  peril,  and  charge  won  to 
Her  Majesty's  love  and  obedience  be  not  by  other  pilferers  lost 
again.  I  hope  I  shall  be  thought  worthy  to  direct  those  actions 
that  I  have  at  my  own  charge  laboured  in,  and  to  govern  that 
country  which  I  have  discovered  and  hope  to  conquer  for  the 
Queen  without  her  cost.  I  am  sending  away  a  bark  to  the 
country  to  comfort  and  assure  the  people,  that  they  despair  not 
nor  vield  to  any  composition  with  other  nations ""  {Hist.  MSS. 
Com.^  Hatfield  House,  v.  p.  457).  The  queen  herself  was  the 
centre  of  the  movement,  as  the  correspondence  of  the  period 
shows.  "  The  company  and  associate  adventurers  into  Russia 
and  other  the  north  east  parts  for  the  discovery  of  new  trades  " 
were  in  difficulties  in  1515,  and  letters  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil  give 
most  interesting  details  of  the  transactions  of  the  company 
{Ibid.,  p.  462). 

VI  (p.  202) 

It  is  curious  that  just  at  this  time  a  discovery  at  Woolwich 
revives  the  interest  in  the  shipping  of  this  date.  The  discovery 
consists  of  parts  of  a  large  wooden  ship.  It  is  not  yet  estab- 
lished whether  they  are  the  remains  of  a  sixteenth-century  man- 
of-war,  such  as  the  Great  Harrij,  or  of  an  eighteenth-century 
merchantman,  unknown  and  unhonoured. 

The  facts  stated  in  the  text  dispose  of  the  theory  of  it  being 
Drake's  ship,  the  Pelkan,  though  it  may  be  another  ship  of 
his  fleet.     The  Times  states  the  case  as  follows  : — 

"  The  first  announcement  of  the  finding  of  the  ship  appeared 
in  the  Times  so  long  ago  as  19th  November  1912,  when  it  was 
stated  that  a  section,  about  thirty  feet  wide  and  in  a  good  state 
of  preservation,  was  unearthed  during  excavations  on  the  site  of 
the  new  electricity  station  of  the  Woolwich  Borough  Council 
on  the  south  bank  of  the  Thames.     The  place  was  immediately 


368  LONDON 

visited  by  the  late  Sir  William  White,  formerly  Assistant 
Controller  of  the  Navy  and  Director  of  Naval  Construction, 
who  examined  the  remains  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
vessel  had  been  there  about  a  hundred  and  fifty  years.  In 
January  last  the  notice  of  the  Conniiittee  of  the  London  County 
Council  who  are  interested  in  local  government  records  and 
antiquities  was  called  to  the  remains.  They  sent  a  representa- 
tive to  Woolwich,  who  took  photographs  of  the  ship  while  it 
was  being  excavated,  and  made  measurements  of  its  parts. 

"The  matter  has  now  been  revived  by  Mr  Seymour  Lucas, 
R.A.,  who  painted  'The  Armada  in  Sight."  He  has  inspected 
the  timbers,  and  is  convinced  they  are  the  remains  of  an  early 
sixteenth-century  ship  of  war,  probably  the  Grrat  Harry,  which 
was  burnt  to  the  water's  edge  and  taken  to  the  dock  built  at 
Woolwich  in  1521,  where  the  hull  sank.     He  says : 

" '  Although  little  is  known  of  the  construction  of  these  ships 
of  this  early  date,  the  closeness  of  the  ribs,  the  size  of  the 
keelson  as  seen  in  the  photographs,  are  absolutely  irrefutable 
evidence  of  the  date  of  the  hull.  I  was  shown  two  wheels, 
evidently  those  of  a  gun-carriage  of  the  time  of  Henry  VIH. 
or  of  the  early  years  of  Elizabeth,  some  stone  cannon-balls,  and 
some  pieces  of  Elizabethan  pottery,  all  of  which  had  been  taken 
out  of  the  hull.  Of  course,  an  antiquary  would  probably  have 
obtained  much  additional  evidence  if  he  could  have  been  present 
durino;  the  excavations.  When  I  arrived  the  timbers  of  the 
wreck  were  being  carted  away  to  Castles'  timber-yard.' 

"The  timbers  have  been  bought  by  Messrs  Hindleys,  archi- 
tectural decorators,  Welbeck  Street,  who  are  disposed  to 
believe,  on  the  testimony  of  an  expert  in  naval  history,  that 
they  are  rather  the  remains  of  the  Pelican,  which  was  long 
preserved  at  Deptford,  as  a  monument  of  Drake's  voyage,  and 
is  supposed  to  have  been  removed  to  Woolwich  some  time  in 
the  eighteenth  century.  Therefore  the  difficult  question  of 
the  identity  of  the  shi})  remains  to  be  solved"  {Times,  9th 
December  1915). 


APPENDIX  369 

VII  (p.  211) 

Eltham  Palace  is  well  worth  an  extra  note  in  a  book  on 
London,  and  I  (juote  from  the  Times  of  19th  April  1913  the 
following  facts  : — 

"  Eltham  Palace,  where  the  Office  of  Works  is  now  carrying 
out  an  interesting  scheme  of  preservation,  stands  on  the  brow 
of  a  green  slope  looking  westwards  towards  the  hills  of 
Greenwich  and  South  London.  The  most  attractive  route 
to  Eltham  is  from  Greenwich — a  walk  of  about  four  miles. 
This  route  leads  us  through  Greenwich  Park,  past  the  Obser- 
vatory, and  out  on  Blackheath  at  the  end  of  the  chestnut 
avenue.  Slanting  leftwards  across  the  Heath,  for  the  lowest 
corner  past  the  further  pond,  we  turn  through  a  wicket- 
gate  and  follow  a  path  under  trees.  On  the  right  stands 
Morden  College — one  of  the  most  perfect  minor  examples  of 
Wren's  building,  placed  in  delightful  gardens  open  to  the 
public.  The  path  comes  out  on  the  road  at  Kidbrooke 
church  ;  and  on  the  other  side  of  the  road  a  field-path  leads 
on  to  Eltham. 

"  The  glories  of  Eltham  as  a  residence  of  English  sovereigns 
began  to  fade  when  Henry  VIII.  transferred  his  affections  to 
the  palace  at  Greenwich.  But  apart  from  any  sentimental 
associations  which  Henry  VIII.  may  have  left  for  his  birthplace, 
the  supersession  of  the  old  palace  on  the  hill  by  the  new  one 
bv  the  waterside  was  almost  inevitable.  Eltham  was  a  Royal 
manor  as  early  as  Saxon  times,  and  probably  a  very  ancient 
settlement ;  the  name  itself  is  said  to  mean  '  old  home ""  or 
dwelling.  It  lies  high  and  dry  on  the  Blackheath  pebble-beds, 
in  just  the  open  and  well-drained  situation  where  early  settlers 
would  cluster.  The  Domesday  record  shows  it  well  supplied 
with  arable  land  in  proportion  to  its  woodland  and  meadow, 
as  we  should  expect  in  a  site  of  this  kind,  but  with  no  mill. 
There  is  no  stream  which  could  easily  be  made  to  turn  one. 
As  long  as  the  flats  beneath  the  hill  at  Greenwich  were  a  tidal 
marsh,  the  Eltham  plateau  was  a  far  preferable  position  ;  but 

S4 


370  LONDON 

the  reclamation  of  the  Thames  shore  brought  Greenwich 
closely  in  touch  with  London  by  the  natural  highway  of 
the  river. 

"James  I.  was  the  last  monarch  who  is  known  to  have  visited 
it,  and  after  the  death  of  Charles  I.  it  was  ordered  to  be  sold 
lor  the  benefit  of  the  public.  The  survey  taken  at  this  time 
gives  an  idea  of  the  extent  of  the  palace  buildings  as  late  as 
the  seventeenth  century.  It  states  that  the  '  capital  mansion 
called  Eltham  House '  consisted  of  '  one  fair  chapel,  a  great 
hall,  thirty-six  rooms,  and  offices  below  stairs,  with  two  cellars ; 
above  stairs,  seventeen  lodging  rooms  on  the  King's  side,  twelve 
rooms  on  the  Queen's  side,  and  nine  on  the  Prince's,  with 
various  other  necessary  rooms  and  closets.  Also  thirty-five 
bays  of  building,  containing  seventy-eight  rooms  used  as  offices 
round  the  courtyard.'  The  report  adds  that  only  the  great 
hall  and  the  chapel  were  then  furnished,  and  that  the  whole 
was  very  much  out  of  repair.  Every  trace  above  ground  of  the 
chapel  has  now  vanished,  though  excavation  would  probably 
show  its  foundations ;  it  formed,  no  doubt,  a  convenient  quarry 
for  builders  in  a  district  where  there  is  no  building  stone 
close  at  hand.  It  stood  between  the  gateway  and  the  great 
hall,  and  was  twisted  out  of  the  general  plan  of  the  building  in 
order  to  give  it  the  proper  orientation.  The  hall  was  spared 
because  its  great  size  made  it  useful  for  a  barn,  but  the  glass 
and  stonework  perished,  and  the  windows  were  later  blocked  up 
with  brick.  Besides  this  noble  building,  of  which  the  fifteenth- 
century  timber  roof  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  in  England, 
the  most  important  remains  within  the  area  enclosed  by  the 
moat  are  the  retaining  wall  of  the  terrace  and  the  lower  courses 
of  some  of  the  dwelling  rooms  next  to  the  moat,  which 
apparently  escaped  complete  destruction  owing  to  their  being 
sunk  beneath  the  level  of  the  soil  above.  Under  the  floor  of 
these  rooms  there  still  exists  in  very  fair  repair  a  covered  way 
to  a  private  bridge  built  for  himself  by  Henry  VIII.,  just  above 
the  level  of  the  water,  out  to  the  park  beyond.  On  the 
opposite  side  of  the  palace  the    main   bridge    of  four  pointed 


APPENDIX  371 

arches  leading  from  the  outer  court  to  the  inner  gatehouse  still 
spans  the  moat.  On  three  sides  the  dry  bed  of  the  moat  now 
forms  part  of  the  garden  of  the  private  residence  which  stands 
next  to  the  hall ;  and  an  engraving  in  Lysons's  Environs  of 
London,  published  in  1796,  shows  in  front  of  the  gateway  ou\y 
a  narrow  pool  of  water  stopping  short  of  the  bridge.  Now  the 
water  extends  for  the  full  length  of  the  moat  on  this  side, 
though  not  for  its  exceptional  original  breadth  of  a  hundred 
feet ;  and  the  moat  and  old  bridge,  with  a  glimpse  of  the  great 
hall  beyond,  form  a  singularly  delightful  picture. 

"  A  plan  preserved  among  the  family  papers  at  Hatfield 
gives  a  great  deal  of  information  about  the  arrangement  of  the 
whole  area  inside  the  moat,  and  the  Record  Office  has  another 
plan  of  the  buildings  in  the  two  outer  courts  beyond  the  bridge. 
From  these  plans,  together  with  such  details  as  that  given  in 
the  Commonwealth  survey  and  the  records  of  historic  visits,  it 
can  be  well  understood  that  there  was  good  reason  for  a  hall  of 
ample  size.  When  Henry  VHI.  kept  Christmas  here,  as  he  did 
more  than  once  in  plague  years,  apparently  for  the  sake  of  safe 
retirement,  we  are  told  that  only  his  personal  attendants  were 
allowed  to  dine  with  him  in  the  hall.  But  in  earlier  reigns  the 
palace  must  often  have  been  crowded  with  the  retinues  of  the 
King  and  Queen  and  of  princes  and  nobles,  who  were  each 
assigned  their  several  suites  of  chambers,  and  met  together  in 
chapel  and  in  hall.  There  were  several  successive  palaces  or 
Royal  dwellings  upon  this  site ;  we  hear  of  Christmas  being 
kept  on  the  country  cheer  of  Eltham  by  Henry  HI.,  who  may 
have  built  the  first  of  them.  This  thirteenth-century  palace 
was  either  enlarged  or  rebuilt  by  Anthony  Beke,  Bishop  of 
Durham,  who  retained  it  after  the  rightful  owner  fell  at 
Bannockburn,  and  returned  it  at  his  own  death  to  the  Crown. 
The  date  of  the  present  hall  is  fortunately  fixed  by  the  survival 
of  accounts  of  expenditure  on  it  for  a  specified  fortnight  in  the 
autumn  of  1479. 

"  More  than  four  hundred  years  have  passed,  for  many  of 
which  the  rain  had  free  entry  through  the  ruined  windows,  and 


372  LONDON 

the  hall  now  stands  in  urgent  need  of  repair.  The  work  already 
undertaken  on  it  includes  the  removal  of  the  rough  brickwork, 
with  which  the  empty  windows  had  been  filled  for  the  protection 
of  the  interior  against  the  weather,  and  the  restoration  of  the 
original  design.  The  Reigatc  stone  used  by  the  fifteenth-century 
builders  has  in  places  weathered  very  badly ;  and  this  is  being 
replaced  by  more  durable  stone  whei'e  it  is  decayed.  The  work 
is  being  carried  out  with  scrupulous  taste  and  care.  Owing  to 
the  ample  design  of  the  windows,  the  solid  structure  of  the  walls 
was  from  the  first  hardly  sufficient  to  take  the  weight  of  the 
roof  securely.  In  the  course  of  centuries  of  neglect  the  roof  has 
opened  and  spread  until  the  centre  of  the  beams  no  longer 
follows  a  true  line,  and  the  windows  have  been  forced  out  of 
position.  The  distortion  is  hardly  noticeable  on  a  general  view 
from  below,  but  introduces  grave  difficulties  in  restoring  the 
design.  In  the  great  southern  bay  at  the  west  end  of  the  hall, 
when  one  of  the  vanished  mullions  of  the  oriel  window  came  to 
be  replaced,  it  was  found  that  it  would  no  longer  meet  the  shaft 
of  the  surviving  tracery  above.  In  another  part  of  the  same 
oriel  window  the  restored  tracery  would  not  fit  the  widened 
curve  of  the  arch.  No  attempt  has  been  made  either  to 
introduce  sham  fifteenth-century  work  of  twentieth-century  con- 
struction or  to  distort  the  new  work  necessary  for  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  structure  into  an  imitation  of  the  gradual  warping 
of  time.  The  new  work  inserted  in  the  walls  and  windows  to 
prevent  further  decay  is  frankly  dated  '  lOl^,'  though — unlike 
most  of  the  previous  repairs  on  the  spot — it  is  carefully  sub- 
ordinated to  what  is  old.  Where  the  tracery  would  not  meet 
the  replaced  mullion,  it  has  been  supported  as  it  stands,  and  left 
a  few  inches  out  of  the  true  line,  but  safe  for  the  future.  Where 
the  spread  arch  is  too  wide  for  the  replaced  tracery,  the  design 
has  not  been  falsified  by  widening  it,  but  a  narrow  fillet  of 
stonework  has  been  interposed  to  fill  the  gap.  Owing  to  the 
original  slightness  of  the  stonework,  and  subsequent  neglect, 
the  work  of  repair  has  been  one  of  extreme  delicacy.  The 
defaced  vaulting  of  one   of  the    bays  was  successfully  held  in 


APPENDIX  .$73 

place  while  its  supports  were  bein<^  strengthened,  when  a  slip 
of  a  fraction  of  an  inch  would  have  brought  it  down.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  stones  in  the  windows,  and  of  those  in  the 
bridge  spanning  the  moat,  are  now  held  individually  in  place  by 
copper  ties.  In  every  case  where  it  has  been  necessary  to  insert 
modern  work,  the  architect  in  charge  of  historic  buildings  under 
the  Office  of  Works  and  the  Inspector  of  Ancient  Monuments 
have  aimed  at  keeping  it  subordinate  to  the  original  design, 
and  in  harmony  with  it,  while  not  attempting  to  conceal  its 
modern  date. 

"The  same  scrupulous  judgment  is  shown  in  the  work  pro- 
gressing on  other  parts  of  the  old  palace.  Where  the  brick 
bays  overhanging  the  dry  moat  on  the  west  were  hacked  away 
within  the  swing  of  a  man  working  a  pickaxe,  they  have  been 
underpiiuied  here  and  there  by  inserting  old  bricks  of  the  same 
mellow  redness.  The  colour  of  the  brickwork  about  the  palace 
is  one  of  its  great  charms ;  and  a  method  of  pointing  has  been 
devised  which  spares  all  its  delicacy,  while  repairing  it  as 
effectually  as  the  ugliest  cement  or  plaster.  Roughcast  of  a 
carefully  chosen  consistency  is  dabbed  in,  and  then  worked  over 
with  a  wet  brush,  until  the  coarser  grit  stands  out  with  a 
surface  and  colour  which  blend  harmoniously  with  the  brick. 
The  effect  is  extremely  good,  and  the  method  might  well  be 
copied  by  all  who  cherish  old  but  decayed  brick  walls.  A 
curious  feature  of  the  old  garden,  outside  the  moat,  is  a  row  of 
niches  in  the  wall,  in  which  brasiers  were  probably  placed  to 
protect  the  fruit-blossom  on  frosty  spring  nights.  They  were 
blocked  with  plaster,  which  has  now  been  removed.  Much  care 
and  labour  have  been  spent  on  the  bridge,  which  threatened  to 
collapse  under  stress  of  the  heavy  motor  traffic  of  the  last  few 
years.  By  bonding  the  stones  with  copper,  and  grouting  the 
interior  with  liquid  cement,  the  whole  bridge  will  practically 
become  a  monolith,  and  will  offer  secure  resistance  to  any  form 
of  traffic.  An  incidental  result  of  this  work  was  the  discovery 
of  the  pit  of  the  old  drawbridge.  Another  important  piece  of 
consolidating   work   is  being   carried  out   where   the    retainingr 


374  LONDON 

wall  of  the  terrace  had  slipped  forward  on  a  layer  of  clay  and 
threatened  to  fall  into  the  moat.  The  clay  bed  has  been 
excavated,  and  replaced  by  one  of  cement,  which  should  prevent 
any  further  travels. 

"The  work  already  done  is  of  the  utmost  value  in  safeguard- 
ing the  remains  of  this  palace  against  further  decay,  and  reveal- 
ing their  beauties  more  fully.  But  the  hall,  which  is  the 
peculiar  glory  of  the  spot,  is  still  in  an  extremely  unsafe  state, 
and  urgently  needs  thorough  repair.  The  heavy  roof  continues 
to  thrust  out  the  walls,  and  some  of  its  own  beams  are  very 
much  decayed.  Their  rottenness  makes  them  a  wholly  in- 
adequate support  for  the  iron  ties  which  were  inserted  as  a 
measure  of  safety  some  years  ago ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  trust 
to  them  any  longer." 

VIII  (p.  258) 

Wren  was  so  great  a  Londoner  that  it  might  have  been 
imagined  that  care  should  have  been  taken  of  his  house  in 
Botolph  Lane.  But  it  has  reached  its  last  stages,  as  the  following 
letter  to  the  Times,  15th  April  1913,  indicates:  "The  last 
remnants  of  this  house,  which,  by  tradition,  was  designed, 
built,  and  occupied  by  the  great  architect  as  his  residence  in 
the  city  of  London  during  the  patching  up  of  the  old  and  the 
construction  of  the  present  St  Paul's  Cathedral,  have  been 
acquired  to-day  through  purchase  by  Alderman  Sir  Charles 
Wakefield.  The  grand  staircase  with  wall  panelling,  the  door- 
ways with  curved  pediments  and  elaborate  mouldings,  and 
the  grand  landing  complete  the  detail  of  the  acquisition, 
which  is  to  find  a  new  home  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 
Some  account  of  the  building,  which  was  condemned  in  1906 
as  a  'dangerous  structure,'  appeared  in  the  Architectural 
Review,  vol.  xix.,  and  the  staircase  is  pictured  in  Mr  Walter 
Godfrey's  The  English  Staircase,  edition  MCMXI."  {Times, 
15th  April  1913). 


I 


APPENDIX  375 

IX  (p.  ^80) 

It  is  curious  thcat  .specimens  of  the  tapestries  referred  to  in 
the  text  have  only  recently  been  added  to  the  national  collection 
in  the  V^ictoria  and  Albert  Museum.  The  Times  of  2oth  July 
1913  gives  the  following  description  : — 

"  One  of  these  is  a  Mortlake  tapestry  of  the  first  half  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  The  tapestry  forms  one  of  a  set  of  six 
representing  the  history  of  Hero  and  I.eander,  which  were  woven 
between  the  years  1623  and  1636  from  the  cartoons  of  Francis 
Clein,  or  Cleyn,  who  died  in  1658,  a  native  of  Rostock,  who 
was  employed  for  many  years  as  a  designer  for  the  Mortlake 
factory.  In  the  bottom  right-hand  corner  is  the  mark  of  Sir 
Francis  Crane,  who  died  in  1636,  the  first  director  of  the  Mort- 
lake factory.  The  tapestry  is  woven  in  wool  and  silk  on 
woollen  warps.  The  body  of  Leander  lies  on  the  rocky  shore 
near  a  circular  tower.  Hero  kneels  beside  him  holding  up  her 
hands  in  unrestrained  grief,  and  a  female  attendant  behind 
stands  sorrowing  with  her  hands  clasped  together.  Cupid 
holding  the  torch  is  seated  on  a  rock  to  the  right.  The  sun  is 
rising  over  the  sea  in  the  distance.  The  broad  border  is  filled 
with  strapwork,  intertwined  with  garlands  of  fiowers  and 
leaves  which  are  supported  by  diminutive  winged  boys.  There 
is  a  medallion  in  each  corner,  and  another  in  the  middle  of 
each  side :  the  former  contain  figures  of  winged  boys  (perhaps 
the  Winds) ;  that  in  the  top  border  is  plain  ;  those  on  the  left 
and  right  represent  Hero  clasping  the  body  of  Leander  while 
a  male  figure  endeavours  to  pull  her  away,  and  a  figure  of 
Neptune  riding  on  the  waves.  The  medallion  at  the  bottom 
encloses  the  inscription,  '  Luget  amor  nutrixque  gemit  moritura 
marita  dum  ruit  in  laceri  naufraga  membra  viri.'  The  second 
of  these  tapestries  was  woven  at  Lambeth  about  1670-80,  and 
represents  a  scene  from  the  story  of  Troy.  It  is  woven  in  wool, 
silk,  and  silver  thread  on  woollen  warps.  It  most  probably 
represents  the  seizure  of  Cassandra  by  Agamennion  during  the 
sack  of  the  city,  with  the  earlier  episode  of  her  rape  from  the 


376  LONDON 

temple  of  Minerva  seen  in  the  background  (VirgiPs  j^neid,  ii. 
403-6).  The  shield-of-arms  of  the  Earl  of  Meath,  with  the 
motto  '  Vota  [rendered  as  Vata]  Vita  Mea,'  occupies  the  middle 
of  the  upper  border.  The  design  of  this  tapestry  is  probably 
due  to  Francis  Clein.  The  words  '  Made  at  Lambeth '  are 
woven  into  the  lower  border.  It  was  probably  made  by  William 
Benood,  a  tapestry- weaver  of  that  place." 


INDEX 


Act    of  Parliament    for   rebuilding 

London,  259-266. 
Adams,  William,  204. 
Africa,  Roman,  340. 
Aldermen,  Court  of,  151. 

election  of,  192-193. 

Aldwych,  1 13,  127. 

Alfred  (King),  5,  93,  111-115. 

Allectus,  70,  130. 

Altars,  57,  59,  60,  61. 

Amphitheatre,  51. 

Anderida,  93. 

Anglo-Saxon  London,  i,  9,  12,  14, 

15,  84,  S7-91,  105,  111-134. 
Ansgar  the  Sheriff,  5,  15. 
Apollo,  bronze  figure  of,  67. 
Armada,  Drake  and  the,  202. 
Arms,  city  in,  5,  143,  195-197,  240. 
Arrest  of  citizens,  288. 
Arthur,  Artorius,  T^. 
Atys,  bronze  figure  of,  67. 
Augusta,  Roman  name  for  London, 

13,  24,  49,  86. 
Augustus,  deified,  worship  of,  37. 

Baal,  cult  of,  10. 

Bagnigge  Wells,  295. 

Baker  at  work,  152. 

Balance,  bronze,  Roman,  49. 

Barons,  army  of  the,  5,  197. 

Barons  of  St  Paul's,  144. 

Bear-baiting,  141. 

Bear  Garden,  51,  206. 

Belinus,  Celtic  god,  20. 

Beowulf  poem,  88,  366. 

Berkeley  Square,  307. 

Betting  in  London,  231. 

Birch  (Colonel)  plan  for  rebuilding 

London,  259,  267. 
Bloomsbury,  212. 
Boer  War,  city  volunteers,  6. 
Bond  Street,  300. 


Boudicca,  taking  of  London  by,  17, 

46,  87. 
Boundary  mark,  48. 
Brandon  Houte,  211. 
Bridewell  Palace,  given  to  the  poor, 

222-229. 
Bridge,  49,  212,  217. 
Buckingham  Palace,  296,  297. 
Building  of  London,  252,  253,  259- 

266. 
Burbage,  Cuthbert,  207. 
Burbage,  James,  207. 
Burbage,  Richard,  207. 
Burghs,  five,  of  Scotland,  342. 

Caerleon,  92-93,  130. 

Caerwent  inscription,  T"]. 

Calais,  surrender  of,  190. 

Camp,  early  London,  48. 

Canal,  Regent's,  299-300. 

Capital,  cosmopolitan  character  of, 

336. 
Carausius,  70,  130. 
Carlisle,  99. 
Cassivellaunus,  22. 
Celtic  civilisation,  11. 
London,  i,  11,   18,  20-43,  75) 

82,351. 

religious  influences,  43. 

Ceremonial,  Roman,  70. 

Chancellor,  Sir  Richard,  203. 

Chancery  Lane,  213. 

Charles  L,  237,  243. 

Charles  II.,  256. 

Charter  rights,  136,  137,  247,  248, 

249,  250. 
Cheapside,  Goldsmith's  Row,  272. 
Chelsey  House,  276-7. 
Chiswick  House,  296. 
Church  jurisdiction,  99. 
Churches  on  Roman  sites,  94. 
Cincjue  Ports,  342. 
377 


378 


LONDON 


City-institution,  7,  72,  134-164,  348. 
City-state,  15,  69,  72,  333,  334,  338- 

.  345- 
Civilised  consciousness,  335. 
Coins,  Roman,  69,  70,  71,  72,  74,  75. 
Colchester,  worship  of  the  Emperor 

at,  37- 
Colonia,  London  not  a,  23,  25. 
Coloniee  in  Britain,  53. 
Commerce,  loi,  182,  230-231. 
Common  Council,  237,  245,  247,  285. 
Common  fields  outside  London,  1 28. 
Common  good,  1 58. 
Common  Hall,  1 19,  243,  286,  290, 

291. 
Commonwealth  London,  i,  240-243. 
Commune  of  London,  137-140. 
Companies,  city,  supervision  of  poor 

by,  224,  249. 
Constitutional  position  of  London, 

169,  242,  287,  291,334. 
Continental  cities,  107. 
Continuity  of  London,  4,  8,  18,  19, 

43.  71,  75,  106,  134,  176,  182, 

185,    197,   240,   241,  246,   251, 

290,  333.  348- 
Cordwainers'  gild,  157. 
Costume,  55,  68. 
Covent  Garden,  212,  269. 
Crayford,  battle  of,  5,  13,  97,  197. 
Custom  of  the  city,  5,  71,  158,  179, 

185,  187,  245,  292. 
Cybele,  bronze  figure  of,  67. 

Danish   London,    15,   98,  113-115, 

127,  129,  133. 

towns,  league  of  the,  342. 

Davis,  John,  203. 

Deae  Matres,  cult  of,  57,  59. 

Decurions,  53. 

Deptford,  202. 

Destruction,  Anglo-Saxon,  90. 

Diana,  cult  of,  57-63,  82,  84,  353, 

356,  362. 
Divinity  of  kingship,  238. 
Domesday  boroughs,  343. 
Drake,  Sir  Francis,  197-198,  202- 

3.  z^^y,  368. 

Drama,     English,     developed     in 

London,  204-209. 
Druidism,  10. 
Drury  Lane,  212,  269. 
Ducking  stool,  124. 


East  India  Company,  204. 
Ecclesiastical  court,  146. 
Edgware  Road,  313. 
Edward  VI.  and  Bridewell  Palace, 

222   22^. 
Election  of  kings  and  chiefs,  Eng- 
lish, 1 12,  1 18,  168. 
Elizabeth  (Queen),  192,  253. 
Eltham  Palace,  211,  369-374. 
Empire,  London  the  capital  city  of 

the,  259,  330,  331,  334. 
Erasmus,  185. 
Essex,  Earl  of,  200. 
Estates,  the  great,  306-307. 
Ethnology  of  London  area,  21. 
European      character     of     Tudor 

London,  213-216. 
Evening  Post,  288-290. 
Expansion  of  cities,  343. 
of  London,  209-213,  219,  221, 

230,  251-255,  271,  273,  293-308, 

311-332,343. 
Extensions  of  London  functions,  3, 

4.  72,  178. 

Family  organisation,  Roman,  68. 

Feast,  Lord  Mayor's,  187,  188,  247. 

Feasts,  livery  companies',  192. 

Fetters,  123. 

Finsbury,  98,  241. 

Fire  of  London  rebuilding  schemes, 

257-266. 
Fishing  in  religious  cult,  39,  40,  66. 
Fishmongers'  gild,  1 59. 
Fleet  Bridge,  162. 
Fleet  River,  294. 
Foeship  in  gild  history,  155. 
Folkmoot,  1 1 5-1 19,  147,  169. 
Foreign  visitors,  214-218,  276. 
Forum,  51. 

Frobisher,  Sir  Martin,  203. 
Frosts  on  the  Thames,  277,  278. 
Functions  of  city  government,  344. 

Gallows,  127. 

Georgian  London,  i,  8,  19,  283-310. 
Giant  builders,  88. 
Gilds,  122-124,  152-158. 
Globe  Theatre,  208. 
God,  river,  in  white  marble,  35,  36. 
Goldsmiths'  Row,  272. 
(jovernment  of  extra  London,  324- 
326,  328. 


INDEX 


379 


Gracious  Street,  drapers'  shops  in, 

200. 
Graves,  Celtic,  26. 
Greek  parallels,  345. 
Greenwich,  192,  203,  214,  215-216, 

274,  296. 
Gresham,  Sir  Thomas,  191. 
Guildhall,  188,  238,  239. 
Gurthrigernus,  78. 

Hackney,  215. 

Hadrian,  bronze  head  of,  38. 
Hammersmith,  315-317. 
Hampstead    Heath  and    Boudicca 

tradition,  87. 
Hastings,  battle  of,  5,  197. 
Heathenism  of  London,  14. 
Henry  VIH.,  5,  193,  I95-I97,  211, 

-4'- 

Historical  influences,  2,  3,  4,  6,  9, 
10,  18,  54,  141,  243,  286,  332, 
338. 

Holborn,  212,  320. 

Holborn  Bridge,  162. 

Honorius,  letter  to  the  cities,  53. 

House  religion,  Roman,  57,  58. 

Hustings  Court,  120-121. 

Hut  circles,  Celtic,  27. 

Hyde  Park,  295-296. 

Inscriptions,  41,  51,  53,  55. 
Insignia,  Roman,  131. 
Isledon,  Islington,  21,  51,  295. 

James  I.,  187,  253. 

James  II.,  243,  244. 

Judicial  appeals  from  the  dominions, 

.330. 
Jupiter,  bronze  figure  of,  67. 
Jurisdictional  boundaries,  97. 

Key,  bronze,  Roman,  80. 

iron,  Roman,  50,  56. 

King  of  London,  79,  82,   130,  133, 

139,  244. 
Kingship,  Stuart  conception  of,  238. 
Kingston,  English  crowning  place, 

112,  127. 
Knightsbridge,  313. 

Labour  in  relation  to  capital,  336. 
Laindon,  28. 


Lambeth,  215,  279,  280. 
Lambeth  Palace,  2i  i. 
Lamp,  Roman,  44,  63-64. 
Lancaster,  Sir  John,  204. 
Land  development  rights,  270. 

succession  rights,  102. 

Language,  Roman,  55,  68. 
Latimer,  Bishop,  201,  219. 
Latin  language,  55. 
Law    of    London    contra    national 

law,  1 50,  151,  290. 

Roman,  102-105,  121. 

Leadenhnll,  51,  93-94. 
Leagues  of  cities,  342. 
Lincoln's  Inn,  213,  219,  220. 
London,  maps  and  views  of,  136. 

name  of,  86. 

London  Stone,  48,  118. 

Long  Acre,  212. 

Lordship   of  the    English    system, 

III. 
Love  of  London,  16,  17,  46,  47,  332. 
Lud  tradition,  16,  20,  26,  34-42,  82, 
Lydney,  temple  of  Lud  at,  34-42. 

Majesty,  as  title  of  the  king,  183. 

Manors  outside  London,  99,  102, 
162. 

Mantua,  picture  of  London  at,  2 1 3-4. 

Maps,  picture,  212. 

Markets,  tolls  from,  273. 

Mary  (Queen),  186-187. 

Marylebone  Park,  298,  299. 

Mayor,  election  of,  189-192. 

Mellitus,  Bishop,and  London  pagan- 
ism, 84. 

Mercury,  bronze  figure  of,  67. 

Middlesex,  Roman  field  plotting  in, 

54-    .      . 
territorium    jurisdiction,    100, 

loi,  142. 
Mile  End,  5,  95,  143,  194,   195-197, 

286. 
Mithra,  cull  of,  57,  58,  59. 
Moor  of  London,  100. 
More,  Sir  Thomas,  185. 
Mortlake,  280. 

Municipal  interchanges,  341,  345. 
Municipium,  London  a,  24,  25. 

Nash  (John)  town-planning  scheme, 

297-305 
Newbury,  battle  of,  6,  241. 


380 


LONDON 


Norman  London,  i,  15,  134-164. 
Netting  Hill,  317. 

Offices,  city,  nominees  of  the  crown 

for,  189. 
Oppidum,  British,  22,  30. 
Ornaments,  personal,  Roman,  56. 
Orphans,  city,  189. 
Oxford  Circus,  301. 

Paddington,  295,  296. 

Paganism  in  London,  84. 

Pall  Mall,  301. 

Parish,   provision  for  poor   in  the, 

224,  229. 
Parliament,    London    and,    8,   235, 

237,  238,  239,  246,  284-290. 
Peace  of  the  world,  335. 
Personal  law,  104. 
Pety  Wales,  place-name,  80-81,  172. 
Piccadilly  Circus,  301. 
Pile  dwellings,  27,  32,  33,  34. 
Pillory,  122,  153. 
Pincers,  iron,  Roman,  51,  78,  79. 
Pitsea,  28. 
Place-names,  21. 
Plantagenet  London,  i,  5,  19,  161- 

164,    166,    176-1795    207,    213, 

238. 
Pole,  Cardinal,  185,  195. 
Pomerium,  53,  97-98. 
Poor,    Bridewell     Palace    scheme, 

222-229. 
Potteries,  the,  317. 
Prittlewell,  28. 

Proclamation,  government  by,  229. 
Publicani,  53. 

Race  problems  of  the  future,  337. 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  200,  204,  366. 

Ratcliff,  203. 

Regency  scheme,  297-305. 

Regent  Street,  302,  305. 

Regent's  Park,  304. 

Religion,    Celtic,     34-43)    67,    76, 

82-85. 

Roman,  35,  56-68,  82-83. 

Retiarius,  inscription  to  a,  51,  52. 
Roads,  Celtic,  27. 

modern,  308. 

Roman,  50,  76. 

Roman  civilisation  in  Britain,  9,  23- 

25,87,  131. 


Roman  London,  i,  9,  11,  13,  19,  35, 

44-73,  346,  351-366. 
parallels,  5,  26,  48,  50,  53,  69, 

72,  86,  108,  173-176,  333>  337, 

339,  340- 

St  Giles,  318-319. 

St  James,  Court  of,  279. 

St  James's  Park,  213,  257. 

St  Martin's  Lane,  212. 

St  Paul's,  jurisdiction  of,  143-150. 

lands  of,  99. 

site  of,  29,  42,  62,  63,  64,  219, 

267-269,  353-357- 

St  Paul's  Cathedral,  Wren's,  256. 

Sandals,  55. 

Sanitary  conditions,  315-323. 

Saris,  John,  204. 

Savoy,  the,  225. 

Scale  beam,  bronze,  Roman,  54. 

Science,  influence  of,  336. 

Seal,  castellain,  of  London,  140. 

mayoralty,  of  London,  i  yj,  158. 

of  Edward  II.,  171. 

of  Henry  II.,  165. 

— —  of  Henry  III.,  166. 

of  Henry  IV.,  177. 

of  Richard  II.,  172. 

of  Richard  III.,  170. 

Sewers,  271,313-315. 

Shakespeare,  198. 

Ship,  Drake's,  198,  202-203. 

Roman,  56. 

Silchester  boundaries,  96. 

Silures,  77. 

Site  of  London,  21-23,  28-30. 

Skulls,  human,  as  trophies,  32,  33. 

Sokes,  Norman,  139,  143,  155. 

Southampton  Estate  Act,  307. 

Southwark,  199,  211,  236,293,  312. 

Sovereignty,  London  and  the,  12, 
106,  129-133,  166,  167,  169, 
170,     186-194,    233,   235,    284, 

334- 
Squares,  306. 
Stags,  remains  of  sacrificed,  62-63, 

353,  362,  365-  . 
State,  new  conceptions  of  the,  186, 

324- 
Statuette,  bronze,  of  Diana,  61. 
Steelyard,  bronze,  Roman,  83. 
Stephen  (King),  5,  167,  168,  169. 
Stepney,  128. 


I 


INDEX 


381 


Stocks,  125. 

Stoney  Street,  51. 

Strand  palaces,  211,  235. 

Strategical  importance,  6,  47. 

Streams,  3 13-3  •  5- 

Streets,  narrowness  of,  263. 

Strigil,  Roman,  56. 

Stuart  London,  i,  19,  216,  218,  232, 

233-282. 
Survivals  of  Roman  culture,  74-109. 
Swan  Theatre,  205. 
Sword,  carried  with  point  upwards, 

189,  250-251. 

Tapestry    weaving,     159,    279-280, 

375- 
Temple,   dedicated    to   worship   of 

the  Emperor,  38. 

of  Diana,  63-65. 

Roman,  66-67. 

Territorial  state,  183-184. 

Territorium,  53,  98-101. 

Thames,  importance  of,  to  London, 

186-187,  197,  1985274,  277. 

jurisdiction,  100. 

■  land  sites  of,  28-31. 

Theatres,  205-209,  345. 

Tilbury,  28. 

Tower  of  London,  170,  171,  172-173, 

181. 
Tower  in  Roman  wall,  46,  47,  95. 
Town  planning,  305. 
Trade  development,  184,  197,  198. 
Traditional    influences,    10,    11,   15, 

16,  26,  78,  79-92,  244,  292. 
Travellers     in     London,     214-218, 

275-6. 
Tree  rite,  Roman,  60. 
Tribal  institutions,  7,  25,  28,  41,  76, 

n- 

Tridents,  51. 


Tudor  London,  i,  8, 19, 181-232,281. 
Tumbril,  121. 
Turnham  Green,  296. 
Turnpikes,  309. 

Urn,  Celtic  cinerary,  26. 

Value,  increase  of  land,  265. 

Vase,  late  Celtic,  27. 

Verulam  not  the  oppidum  of  Cassi- 

veliaunus,  23. 
Vortigern,  77,  78. 
Vortimer,  78. 

Walls,  Roman,  45,  210,  312. 

Walworth,  21,  80. 

Wapping,  203. 

War  and  city  life,  339. 

War,  preparations  for,  215,  231. 

Weavers'  gild,  156. 

Westcliff,  28. 

Westminster,    112,    127,    172,   215, 

221,  312. 
Whipping  at  the  cart-tail,  126. 
Whitehall,  211,  212,  213,  278,  279. 
Wilkes  (John),  episodes  of,  285-290. 
Willougby,  Sir  Hugh,  203. 
Winchester,  99. 
Winchester  House,  211. 
Witenagemot  in  London,  126. 
Wittenham,  30-31. 
Woodward  (Dr)  on  Roman  London, 

357-366. 
Woolwich,  203. 
Work  for  the  poor,  222,  223. 
World  empire,  335,  337-345- 
Wren  (Sir  C),  house  of,  destroyed, 

374- 

on  Roman  London,  351-357. 

plan   for  rebuilding   the  city, 

255,257. 


PRINTED   BY   NEILL    AND   CO.,    LTD.,    EDINBURGH. 


4 


DATE  DUE 

i 

CAVLORD 

I 


^DA611    G65 
Gomme,  George  Laurence, 

-1916. 
London, 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA       001  389  919        o 


